Why is the universe NOT homogeneous?

_{David L. Hagen

January 11, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

The largest large quasar group LQG ever has been discovered, stretching an enormous 4 billion light years from end to end. That is 40,000 times larger than our Milky Way galaxy which is only 100,000 light years across. This LQG contains 73 quasars!

See: Largest Structure in the universe discovered

“The quasar group appears to violate a widely accepted assumption known as the cosmological principle, which holds that the universe is essentially homogeneous when viewed at a sufficiently large scale.”

Original publication: Astronomers discover the largest structure in the universe
Royal Astronomic Society, Monthly Notices, January 11, 2013.

If stochastic homogeneity is disproved, is there an intelligent design based argument for the existence of such an enormous Large Quasar Group?

Comments

further notes on the problems that materialism has for accounting for the subsequent developmental of the universe after its 'instantaneous origination: The Inflation Debate - Paul J. Steinhardt - April 2011 Excerpt: Cosmic inflation is so widely accepted that it is often taken as established fact. The idea is that the geometry and uniformity of the cosmos were established during an intense early growth spurt.,,, But some of the theory’s creators, including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.,,, Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-inflation-summer One of cosmic inflation theory’s creators now questions own theory - April 2011 Excerpt: Inflation adds a whole bunch of really unlikely metaphysical assumptions — a new force field that has a never-before-observed particle called the “inflaton”, an expansion faster than the speed of light, an interaction with gravity waves which are themselves only inferred– just so that it can explain the unlikely contingency of a finely-tuned big bang. But instead of these extra assumptions becoming more-and-more supported, the trend went the opposite direction, with more-and-more fine-tuning of the inflation assumptions until they look as fine-tuned as Big Bang theories. At some point, we have “begged the question”. Frankly, the moment we add an additional free variable, I think we have already begged the question. In a Bayesean comparison of theories, extra variables reduce the information content of the theory, (by the so-called Ockham factor), so these inflation theories are less, not more, explanatory than the theory they are supposed to replace.,,, after 20 years of work, if we haven’t made progress, but have instead retreated, it is time to cut bait. https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/cosmology-one-of-cosmic-inflation-theory%E2%80%99s-creators-now-questions-own-theory/ Sean Carroll channels Giordano Bruno - Robert Sheldon - November 2011 Excerpt: 'In fact, on Lakatos' analysis, both String Theory and Inflation are clearly "degenerate science programs".' http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/11/08/sean_carroll_channels_giordano_bruno.thtml The 'big bang': More data and answers, but what about why? by John Horgan Excerpt: Inflation, which was invented more than 25 years ago by the physicist Alan Guth, appealed to cosmologists because it seemed to solve various fine-tuning problems. Unfortunately, inflation comes in many different versions, and it is based on highly speculative physics that so far lack any empirical evidence. Paul Steinhardt, an early champion of inflation, now promotes a rival theory that he says can account for the observed universe just as well. String theory suffers from flaws even deeper than those of inflation. Far from making our cosmos seem less arbitrary, string theory allows for more than a googol (1 followed by 100 zeros) different possible universes with dimensions, particles, forces and other properties radically unlike our own. http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/scientific_curmudgeon/pages.php?p=inflationbornagain77_{January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Eric, As far as my two cents count for anything, I have already pointed out that if homogenity were to an extreme, as you somehow seem to think it ought to apply in a strict manner, then the privileged planet would not apply. That's a pretty straightforward fact. i.e. How much inhomogenity is allowed or not allowed in your loosely defined presupposition? i.e The privileged Planet principle requires a certain level of inhomogenity in order for it to work as a inference. As to the Big Bang itself, it's the instantaneous origin of the universe that is 'design friendly' to put it mildly. The subsequent development of the universe. after its instantaneous origination, as far as materialistic conjectures accounting for its subsequent development are concerned, are fraught with difficulties: The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse – Dr. Bruce Gordon – video (notes in description of video) https://vimeo.com/34468027 Whereas, as illustrated in my earlier post, Theism holds that God intervened AFTER the instantaneous origination of the universe to 'lay the foundations of the earth' and thus, in my unqualified opinion, it would be reasonable to think that 'inhomogenity' of some sort was introduced at that time: Job 38:4-11 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, ‘This far you may come but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!”bornagain77_{January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

tjguy, I did not quote Dr. Ross for Big Bang evidence, I cited Vilenkin for it, I cited Dr. Ross for his work on the privileged planet principle., why the confusion?bornagain77_{January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

JLAfan said:
Does this discovery undermine or challenge the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God? Eric Are you saying that any cosmological arguments for God’s existence are slowly starting to become invalid?
I don't see what this has to do with the fine tuning argument, except for the part that includes the Big Bang in it(including the cosmological constant). This discovery is a threat to the Standard Cosmological Model(SCM)itself. "Cosmology's Lumpiness Problem Gets Worse" Here is a good summary of the discovery and the problems it presents for the SCM. crev.info/2013/01/cosmologys-lumpiness-problem-gets-worse/tjguy_{January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

BA, How much of Dr. Ross's teachings do you accept? You don't seem to accept his teaching that there was no worldwide flood.?Why is that? Just curious. Is it perhaps that his hermeneutics are a bit too convoluted and twisted for you to justify? Do you agree with him that natural selection cannot produce new species - that God intervened throughout history and created every single species as is? I'm just curious because you keep quoting him. However, evidence like this article puts forth, seems to indicate that Ross's claims that the Big Bang has been undeniably proven are a bit too premature. It can sometimes be dangerous to read current "in vogue" scientific theories into the Bible. The Big Bang claims that the earth formed out of explosion material and coalesced into a flaming ball. This is not the way God tells us it happened. The earth was not a flaming ball in the beginning. It was made out of water. The Big Bang cannot account for the water that so defines our planet today. Besides that, there are too many fudge factors necessary to keep it afloat. However, I doubt this discovery will rock the boat too much. Scientists will just find a way to fit it into the theory since they "know" it happened that way.tjguy_{January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

BA77: Can you clarify: Are you saying that the Big Bang should lead to homogeneity and that because we don't see homogeneity we can therefore conclude that the Big Bang isn't responsible for large scale cosmic structure? Or are you saying that the Big Bang could lead to non-homogeneity and so, therefore, the Big Bang might itself be evidence of design? These are two very different things: (i) the Big Bang being evidence for design, or (ii) the non-homogeneity of the universe being evidence for design (which, if one believes the Big Bang should result in homogeneity, would lead us to question the Big Bang).Eric Anderson_{January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

"It sounds like we are in agreement that the Big Bang is problematic in explaining the large scale structures of the universe. Which is precisely why I don’t think design proponents should be so eager to jump on the Big Bang bandwagon, as many have done." Excuse me, but it is precisely because of the 'non-homogenity' of the universe, which 'the Big Bang does not explain', that allows the Earth to be 'privileged' in the first place. While I agree with you that the evidence for design in biology is jaw dropping in its clarity and is very powerful, I certainly see no reason to be hesitant in using this line of design argumentation for a 'privileged planet' that Gonzalez, Richards, Ross, and others have worked so hard to successfully advanced: Notes:
The Privileged Planet - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw Privileged Planet - Observability Correlation - Gonzalez and Richards - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431 The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole. - Jay Richards The Loneliest Planet - ALAN HIRSHFELD - December 2011 Excerpt: While he cannot prove a galaxy-wide absence of other civilizations, he presents an array of modern, research-based evidence that renders that conclusion eminently reasonable. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204552304577116570107579152.html
To comment on the 'source' of non-homogenity since the Big Bang: As well as the universe having a transcendent beginning, thus confirming the Theistic postulation in Genesis 1:1, the following recent discovery of a 'Dark Age' for the early universe uncannily matches up with the Bible passage in Job 38:4-11. For the first 400,000 years of our universe’s expansion, the universe was a seething maelstrom of energy and sub-atomic particles. This maelstrom was so hot, that sub-atomic particles trying to form into atoms would have been blasted apart instantly, and so dense, light could not travel more than a short distance before being absorbed. If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions. When the cosmos was about 400,000 years old, it had cooled to about the temperature of the surface of the sun. The last light from the "Big Bang" shone forth at that time. This "light" is still detectable today as the Cosmic Background Radiation. This 400,000 year old “baby” universe entered into a period of darkness. When the dark age of the universe began, the cosmos was a formless sea of particles. By the time the dark age ended, a couple of hundred million years later, the universe lit up again by the light of some of the galaxies and stars that had been formed during this dark era. It was during the dark age of the universe that the heavier chemical elements necessary for life, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and most of the rest, were first forged, by nuclear fusion inside the stars, out of the universe’s primordial hydrogen and helium. It was also during this dark period of the universe the great structures of the modern universe were first forged. Super-clusters, of thousands of galaxies stretching across millions of light years, had their foundations laid in the dark age of the universe. During this time the infamous “missing dark matter”, was exerting more gravity in some areas than in other areas; drawing in hydrogen and helium gas, causing the formation of mega-stars. These mega-stars were massive, weighing in at 20 to more than 100 times the mass of the sun. The crushing pressure at their cores made them burn through their fuel in only a million years. It was here, in these short lived mega-stars under these crushing pressures, the chemical elements necessary for life were first forged out of the hydrogen and helium. The reason astronomers can’t see the light from these first mega-stars, during this dark era of the universe’s early history, is because the mega-stars were shrouded in thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. These thick clouds prevented the mega-stars from spreading their light through the cosmos as they forged the elements necessary for future life to exist on earth. After about 200 million years, the end of the dark age came to the cosmos. The universe was finally expansive enough to allow the dispersion of the thick hydrogen and helium “clouds”. With the continued expansion of the universe, the light, of normal stars and dwarf galaxies, was finally able to shine through the thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas, bringing the dark age to a close. (How The Stars Were Born - Michael D. Lemonick) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376229-2,00.html
Job 38:4-11 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, ‘This far you may come but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!" History of The Universe Timeline- Graph Image http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/CMB_Timeline.jpg Cosmic GDP crashes 97% as star formation slumps - November 6, 2012 Excerpt: If the measured decline continues, then no more than 5% more stars will form over the remaining history of the cosmos, even if we wait forever. http://phys.org/news/2012-11-cosmic-gdp-star-formation-slumps.html
As a sidelight to this, every class of elements that exists on the periodic table of elements is necessary for complex carbon-based life to exist on earth. The three most abundant elements in the human body, Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, 'just so happen' to be the most abundant elements in the universe, save for helium which is inert. A truly amazing coincidence that strongly implies 'the universe had us in mind all along'. Even uranium the last naturally occurring 'stable' element on the period table of elements is necessary for life. The heat generated by the decay of uranium is necessary to keep a molten core in the earth for an extended period of time, which is necessary for the magnetic field surrounding the earth, which in turn protects organic life from the harmful charged particles of the sun. As well, uranium decay provides the heat for tectonic activity and the turnover of the earth's crustal rocks, which is necessary to keep a proper mixture of minerals and nutrients available on the surface of the earth, which is necessary for long term life on earth. (Denton; Nature's Destiny). These following articles and videos give a bit deeper insight into the crucial role that individual elements play in allowing life:
The Elements: Forged in Stars - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861 “Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe” (Remarkable balance of various key elements for life) – podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-08-21T14_43_59-07_00 The Role of Elements in Life Processes http://www.mii.org/periodic/LifeElement.php
Also of note:
“Occasionally I’ll have a bright engineering student who says, “Well you should see the equations we work with in my engineering class. They’re a big mess.”, The problem is not the fundamental laws of nature, the problem is the boundary conditions. If you choose complicated boundary conditions then the solutions to these equations will in fact, in some cases, be quite complicated in form,,, But again the point is still the same, the universe assumes a remarkably simple and elegant mathematical form.” – Dr. Walter Bradley
bornagain77_{January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

InVivoVeritas: Thanks for your thoughts. There is certainly evidence in cosmology to support the idea of design in the universe. As I said, the cosmological constants are quite intriguing and should give us much pause. As for the other structures, however, (stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies, clusters, etc.), it all becomes quite a bit more subjective. Notice the language you used to describe it: "wonderful structures," "singularities," "non-uniformity," "architectures," etc. Those kinds of vague and subjective descriptors contrast strongly with the very precise and specific design language we can use to accurately describe what we see in biology: digital code, translation, concatenation algorithms, pumps, rotors, turbines, semiotics, protocol hierarchies, and so on. It sounds like we are in agreement that the Big Bang is problematic in explaining the large scale structures of the universe. Which is precisely why I don't think design proponents should be so eager to jump on the Big Bang bandwagon, as many have done. And I agree with you that there are some intriguing signs of design in the broader universe. But until someone discovers something akin to what we have in biology -- a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture built around a 4-bit digital code, implementing storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing file allocation, concatenation and bit parity algorithms, all operating under a top-down software protocol hierarchy -- until then I'll stick with my assessment that the evidence for design in biology is much more compelling.Eric Anderson_{January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

*Off topic* Hi there BA, was hoping to contact you via email if possible?nivek_nailgun_{January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

OT: Human Genome in Meltdown - January 11, 2013 Excerpt: According to a study published Jan. 10 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”,,,: "We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000?years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.",,, As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples,,, http://crev.info/2013/01/human-genome-in-meltdown/bornagain77_{January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

The belief that the universe is 'essentially homogeneous' went out the window for me when I saw the following video a few years back: George Smoot: The design of the universe - video http://www.ted.com/talks/george_smoot_on_the_design_of_the_universe.html Description of preceding video- At Serious Play 2008, astrophysicist George Smoot shows stunning new images from deep-space surveys, and prods us to ponder how the cosmos -- with its giant webs of dark matter and mysterious gaping voids -- got built this way. Further videos: The Known Universe - 2009 AMNH video: https://vimeo.com/19568852 Journey Through The Universe - George Smoot - Frank Turek - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993965/ As to the doubt that the Big Bang is in question,,,, well, that a instantaneous origin for the universe happened is not in question, what is very much in question are many of the proposed materialistic conjectures that arise from the materialistic worldview trying to account for the mechanics of the Big Bang: "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - paper delivered at Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday party https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/ Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning - April 2012 Excerpt: Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning.,,, They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. "Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past," they say. They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. "A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse," they say. The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal," say Mithani and Vilenkin. Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place). http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/ The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory & The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video https://vimeo.com/34468027bornagain77_{January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson at #10 and #9:
I’m afraid the Big Bang is slowly losing a bit of its lustre and may end up not being the knock-down evidence for intelligent creation of the cosmos many folks have imagined it to be . . .
And also:
So we would need more positive evidence for design. But what we have thus far is a far cry from what we have in biology, for example, where we see information, algorithms, semiotic states, specific functions, etc.
I am not able to see coherence in the way you look to the large cosmic structures and to the small living things in this universe. The biology and the living world is a proof that there is a remarkable force and design power that is able to move the things of the world out of uniformity, out of balance, out of homogeneity into a world of structures, a world of sophisticated systems, intentional designs and mechanisms with finality and purpose – at the extreme opus pole of uniformity, homogeneity and an amorphous landscape. Without a creative intelligence we would expect a natural world to be uniform, homogeneous, amorphous, shapeless, structure-less and boring. It is only a powerful creative intelligence who can be credited with purpose revealed in the non-uniformity, heterogeneity, structure, the rich panoply of forms, systems integrated with systems, the treasure of information forms and the multitude of sophisticated mechanisms in myriad forms, shapes and colors. So if we see these characters of the living world (at the micro scale) why should we be surprised to see also wonderful structures, architectures, non-uniformity, singularities and systems upon systems (planets, start systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, quasars, LQGs) in the large-scale universe? Non-uniformity and heterogeneity at large, cosmic scale is not surprising at all. It is perfectly consistent with what we see at the biologic scale and living life forms scale. The signs of a powerful cosmic-scale intelligence that created life, molded life in millions life forms are consistent with the signs of creation that we see at the galaxy and universe scale. What would be a surprising and unfounded understanding of the big bang and the genesis of the universe would be that unattended natural physics laws are able to give birth to structures, architectures and galaxies, planetary systems and the Earth. The justified speculative thinking here is that all physics and chemistry laws can do is a landscape of perfect uniformity, homogeneity, amorphous and boring cosmic things. It is only a creative and powerful intelligence that can give birth to non-uniformity, heterogeneity, structure, singularities, architecture, forms and diversity. On the microscopic scale isn’t life an exceptional singularity? On the cosmic scale isn’t planet Earth an exceptional singularity?(there are very strong reasons supported by scientific probability calculations to say so, even if this can upset the SETI believers). Wouldn’t be surprising to find the exceptional Earth singularity in a cosmic landscape with perfect uniformity? On the other hand the exceptional Earth singularity rings harmoniously with a cosmic stage where structure and non-uniformity is rather common. Isn’t reasonable to understand that the Big Bang is the probable way in which a demiurge Creator decided to give birth to our universe? Isn’t reasonable to assume that after that moment this Creator molded with his Mind and His Hands the stars, the galaxies, galaxy clusters, the quasars and black holes to create the proper, intricate stage for our planet as the cradle of life and of the human race? Isn’t reasonable to assume that he molded with his hands Adam and Eve and gave them life? On the other hand it does not make sense to think that he just created the set of laws of physics and chemistry, gave the universe an initial impulse at Big Bang and then retreated to let these laws play their course and in an unattended manner lead to the apparition of the living world. In the same manner that is unfounded to believe that an explosion can give birth to structures and significant non-uniformity, it is unfounded to believe that a Big Bang left unattended will give birth to wonderful hierarchical systems and mechanism that can be identified today on planet Earth: think about the Earth iron core, continental plates, magnetic field, finely tuned size and extent of the oceans and the atmosphere, the climate, water, light and air (practical) Perpetuum Mobile they form. In short, both the living world architecture as well as the cosmic scale architecture reveal the eternal power and the exquisite intelligence of the Designer of this world.InVivoVeritas_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

Eric, your comment echoes one I posted in another thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/feser-on-gazzaniga/#comment-443349Mung_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

The existence of the universe and its continuation is a very interesting question. I'm just talking about the Big Bang as the alleged physical mechanism. To be sure, there is some evidence that is consistent with the Big Bang (microwave background radiation, etc.). But there are some pretty significant open issues about whether a Big Bang would result in what we actually observe on a macro scale. I think the jury is still very much out on the Big Bang. My point is this: Some folks (including some well-known ID-friendly folks) have latched onto the Big Bang and promoted it as evidence of an intelligent creation of the cosmos, some even comparing it to or referring to the Biblical creation statement . . . "Let there be light," and so on. I'm much more cautious and would not put too many eggs into the Big Bang basket. I think some of the other evidence -- fine tuning of cosmological constants, for example -- is more persuasive (though in my view still not nearly as compelling as the evidence from biology).Eric Anderson_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Does this discovery undermine or challenge the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God? Eric Are you saying that any cosmological arguments for God's existence are slowly starting to become invalid?JLAfan2001_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

God was only capable of producing a small bang? Not to worry. 1. What caused the universe to being to exist? 2. What is the cause of the continued existence of the universe?Mung_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

Incidentally, the title of the OP reminded me of the discussion we were having recently on another thread, namely, on what basis would a Big Bang process produce any kind of large-scale structure (stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc.)? I'm afraid the Big Bang is slowly losing a bit of its lustre and may end up not being the knock-down evidence for intelligent creation of the cosmos many folks have imagined it to be . . .Eric Anderson_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

"If stochastic homogeneity is disproved, is there an intelligent design based argument for the existence of such an enormous Large Quasar Group?" I dunno. Seems like a shot in the dark (no pun intended). At this point I'm not sure it is even clear how a quasar group would form in the first place (large or small). So without some kind of rational assessment of what can cause a quasar group to form, it is hard to say whether we are dealing with design or purely natural causes. Certainly no-one should hang their hat on design at this point. Looking at a massive quasar group and saying 'it is unexpected on current theories, so therefore it must be designed' doesn't work. So we would need more positive evidence for design. But what we have thus far is a far cry from what we have in biology, for example, where we see information, algorithms, semiotic states, specific functions, etc. I'd say the jury is still very much out . . .Eric Anderson_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

If the universe were homogenous I'd be just like Neil Rickert.Mung_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Is smoking quasars bad for your health?Mung_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

As to quasars themselves, Dr Ross, who I believe earned his Phd studying quasars, has a few parameters here: Probability For Life On Earth - List of Parameters, References, and Math - Hugh Ross http://www.meaningfulscience.com/FineTuningForLifeOnEarthHughRoss.pdf About 1/3 the way down the page we find: density of quasars if smaller: insufficient production and ejection of cosmic dust into the intergalactic medium; ongoing star formation impeded; deadly radiation unblocked if larger: too much cosmic dust forms; too many stars form too late disrupting the formation of a solar-type star at the right time and under the right conditions for life On this site http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part1.pdf we find: Parameter 56 - Density of quasars during early cosmic history reference #88 Smoking Quasars reference #198 A large population of galaxies 9 to 12 billion years back in the history of the Universe Of note: Dr. Hugh Ross, and his team, have (in 2008) drastically refined the 2004 probability estimate of 1 in 10^304 to a staggering probability of 1 in 10^1054: Does the Probability for ETI = 1? Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054. http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1 Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is'; Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate ? 10^324 longevity requirements estimate ? 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ? 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 miracles. http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236 Isaiah 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. Hugh Ross - Four Main Research Papers https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Sl5SCBtcO6xMjwgrkKysBYIOJzjZEcXX68qZ9rwh85sbornagain77_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

I have a serious question. It's true. Does cosmology depend on physics, or does physics depend on cosmology?Mung_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

73? That's all? Not impressed. Don't we need at least 150 quasars in order to exceed the UPB? Now if they were communicating with each other, that would be impressive.Mung_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

The Original Question is:
If stochastic homogeneity is disproved, is there an intelligent design based argument for the existence of such an enormous Large Quasar Group?
Yes would be me answer. And here is the reasoning: a. The scientists discover a fact that clearly contradicts the currently known laws of physics and cosmos. b. The following scientific hypotheses MUST be enunciated then: Alternative A. There are unknown laws of physics that override the known laws physics and that can explain the existence of such an enormous LQG. Alternative B. There is a powerful (intelligent) agent whose actions created the LQG through his powers (equivalent with saying: ‘by exercising additional laws/powers not normally revealed in the universe’) Now evaluating the relative probability (relative quality as ‘best explanation’) between the Alternative A and Alternative B. 1. There are myriad of concrete traces and proofs that only an extremely powerful and intelligent agent could have created life on our planet with its multitude of forms of manifestation amidst of the galactic, solar system and planetary environment specially constructed to support life. 2. There are many other non-homogeneities in the universe, and in particular here on planet Earth that cannot be explained but only by a direct, intentional action of an agent that has the knowledge, the abilities and power to break the homogeneity and uniformity of natural laws in order to create singularity, structure and form to its most advanced manifestation as life and conscience (mind and soul) of the human beings. I would say that no one can say that it is not scientific – given the above circumstances – to conclude that Alternative B. above is the ‘best possible explanation’ between the A. and B. above. So the answer to the Original Question constructed in a scientific manner is YES.InVivoVeritas_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

NR, pardon but A => A is not an answer to why A. KFkairosfocus_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

If the universe were homogeneous, we would not be here. We are inhomogeneities.Neil Rickert_{January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply