Universe is not homogeneous as far as we know

[dad]

In response to the title of the original post:
When we look out to the furthest reaches of our universe, we see the cosmic microwave background, which is uniform to one part in 100,000. That is extremely uniform.

So what??? You forgot to insert a point! What about the creation remnant background being uniform?? How is that any surprise? Remember, of course, that it is merely the creation remnant background that man can detect!

Furthermore, when we attempt to fit a universe which varies in distance from us, we find it doesn't fit our best data (e.g. the distributions of galaxies).

??/ Say what?? Why not fit what we actually see? The distance isn't known. Is it? Can you prove same state space exists all the way?? If not, you have nothing.

As for the actual original post, well, I won't even dignify that with a specific response, except to link to this pair of essays:
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: October 2001
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: August 2006

Give some point from your spammed essays?

 

[dad]

There is no evidence for rapid continent separation.

Yep. The bible. There is no evidence against it, and that is what is important!

There is eveidence that continents came together to form pangea before it broke upagain. How does that fit?

There was the creation week water and land movements. Later there was the post flood separation, as I see it so far. What evidence doesn't fit?

 

[dad]

The "sacred history" says nothing at all about a rapid separation of the continents.. and you would think that it would speak of that in some detail, wouldn't it have?

It says the earth was split. That seems to cover it! Then it has the animals all in one place, so with science we know that this had to be after the flood. Right?

 

[Tiberius]

We shall see.

We already do see. You are blinded by your preconceived ideas.

" One peculiar characteristic of this form of the H-R diagram is that the temperatures are plotted from high temperature to low temperature, which aids in comparing this form of the H-R diagram with the observational form."

Hertzsprung–Russell diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Making a plot of stars is easy. Now where your Waterloo comes in is in showing that the temperature really is high, and how much we have seen going to low! Let's see you really make a case for how you know the temperatures even?

We know because we can tell what elements are in the stars and we have enough knowledge of chemistry and physics to figure out how hot a star will be if it contains those elements.

Example of a way they behave you predict?? I would think that having a few elements around them could be interpreted in other ways, rather than 'evolution'!!

Once again you display your complete ignorance. Evolution has nothing to do with stars. it has to do with biological life.

No. I am tnot the one pretending to have the universe mapped out, and claiming precise things. Science does that. If you can't defend and discuss them, what are you going here?

Nah, you're pretending something else entirely, aren't ya?

And whatever you say, you have produced nothing but vagueness when asked to back up your claims.

So you offer a link. What do you want me to do? Have you proof of a same state past, so that the things we see in the rocks take on your same state past meaning? No. That means you got nothin.

I expect you to read it. I expect you to offer up PROOF of your position. You never have.

OK. They show no ages. Easy. What in them did you think showed ages? Zircon? As above, we need to know what nature they were formed in.

Considering that they are able to be formed in our nature in the way they appear in the rock, I;d say that they were formed in a universe that operated the same way the universe today operates.

No. Just aware that imposing beliefs is all you do and can do.

And what about you? You've made the claim, refused to back it up with any real evidence, and ignore any and all counter evidence.

The only reason that you haven't admitted defeat is because you don't understand science well enough to know your position is unsupportable.

Name some aspect of it then, you should be able to get a fast win here if you are correct..

The fact that the different techniques produce results that agree with each other.

I've mentioned this countless times, and you fail to see it.

 

[Mikecpking]

Yep. The bible. There is no evidence against it, and that is what is important!



There was the creation week water and land movements. Later there was the post flood separation, as I see it so far. What evidence doesn't fit?

There are fossils in pre-pangea rocks, how does that fit in for the first week? Where does it say there is catastrophic plate tectonics?

 

[dad]

There are fossils in pre-pangea rocks, how does that fit in for the first week? Where does it say there is catastrophic plate tectonics?

What, micro fossils? Show the basis for declaring a rock pre Pangaea? Then show what fossils.

 

[dad]

We know because we can tell what elements are in the stars and we have enough knowledge of chemistry and physics to figure out how hot a star will be if it contains those elements.

No. Not true. You only assume our physics apply. Nothing at all more. You also assume that the few things we can see are all that make up the star or whatever we see. You also assume our space goes all the way!

Look at Voyager! Just in our area, they found that all they predicted about space was wrong. They are scrambling to try to explain something different indeed.

NASA - A Big Surprise from the Edge of the Solar System

Once again you display your complete ignorance. Evolution has nothing to do with stars. it has to do with biological life.

Stellar evolution. That is news to you?

Considering that they are able to be formed in our nature in the way they appear in the rock, I;d say that they were formed in a universe that operated the same way the universe today operates.

So? Who cares what you say? Just being formed in part now, does not mean anything really. Stick to what you KNOW.

The only reason that you haven't admitted defeat is because you don't understand science well enough to know your position is unsupportable.

You don't understand it enough to post some, apparently. Cut the big talk.

The fact that the different techniques produce results that agree with each other.

Name them. Same state belief based...all! Count on it.

 

[Chalnoth]

No. Not true. You only assume our physics apply.

It continues to amuse me how you've not stopped with this schtick in all the years since I first registered here (which looks to be nearly five years ago now, according to my profile).

Science works like this: propose an explanation, test the explanation. This works, amazingly well, again and again. It continues to work even for things that happened hundreds of millions and even billions of years ago.

Instead, your way of doing things is to first assume that you know the truth, and then make up whatever ad hoc explanation you need to make any and all evidence fit that truth. That isn't a pathway to knowledge. It is a pathway to ignorance.

In your fevered imagination, you think that others have taken the same pathway as you. You think that they have merely assumed the truth in the same way you have, and this gives you an excuse to not listen to a word they say if it agrees with your preconceptions. And so you languish in your mental trap, never able to escape the prison of ignorance you have built for yourself. I'd suggest you stop, for fear of others falling into the same mental trap. But I'm sure you won't. And a part of me has enough confidence in other people that they will see your fear of changing your mind and run away as fast as they can. Part of me remains cynical that even as stark an example of ignorance personified as yourself won't convince them.

At any rate, it would be nice if you could at least show an ounce of creativity.

 

[Tiberius]

No. Not true. You only assume our physics apply. Nothing at all more. You also assume that the few things we can see are all that make up the star or whatever we see. You also assume our space goes all the way!

What evidence do you have that says our space does not go all the way?

Look at Voyager! Just in our area, they found that all they predicted about space was wrong. They are scrambling to try to explain something different indeed.

NASA - A Big Surprise from the Edge of the Solar System

I see nothing there that invalidates all of science. Just new information that requires a new model. That's the beauty of science. It adapts to new information. We use new information to increase outr knowledge.

Stellar evolution. That is news to you?

But you didn't say stellar evolution. You need to be more clear.

So? Who cares what you say? Just being formed in part now, does not mean anything really. Stick to what you KNOW.

Who cares? Anyone who wants to find out what the universe is really like should care.

So I guess that discounts you.

You don't understand it enough to post some, apparently. Cut the big talk.

I have. You're just unable to recognise it.

Name them. Same state belief based...all! Count on it.

I've already told you about the different dating techniques countless times. I don't think you'll read them this time, since you obviously never read them any of the other times I posted them.

Oh, and I'm STILL waiting for specific evidence that supports your position.

 

[dad]

It continues to amuse me how you've not stopped with this schtick in all the years since I first registered here (which looks to be nearly five years ago now, according to my profile).

Science works like this: propose an explanation, test the explanation. This works, amazingly well, again and again. It continues to work even for things that happened hundreds of millions and even billions of years ago.

In your dreams. Space for example. Things were predicted that the Voyager would encounter. It is completely different. Oklo predicted a lot of stuff went on, none of it has any proof. And on and on and on it goes. (miles deep dunking of site...pure river of water like clockwork for long ages..etc)

Anything that actually works is totally in our nature and time. Period. Consider that a law. Absolute.

Instead, your way of doing things is to first assume that you know the truth, and then make up whatever ad hoc explanation you need to make any and all evidence fit that truth. That isn't a pathway to knowledge. It is a pathway to ignorance.

Lie. Science makes up things, based on their belief system. I do not need to. God has spoken on the issues pretty clear.

In your fevered imagination, you think that others have taken the same pathway as you. You think that they have merely assumed the truth in the same way you have, and this gives you an excuse to not listen to a word they say if it agrees with your preconceptions. And so you languish in your mental trap, never able to escape the prison of ignorance you have built for yourself. I'd suggest you stop, for fear of others falling into the same mental trap. But I'm sure you won't. And a part of me has enough confidence in other people that they will see your fear of changing your mind and run away as fast as they can. Part of me remains cynical that even as stark an example of ignorance personified as yourself won't convince them.

Too bad part of you can't post content. Looks like paranoid delusional talk to me. 'Don't believe God rather than man, we might go blind....'

At any rate, it would be nice if you could at least show an ounce of creativity.

Well we can't all make up interesting things like you I guess. Talent on loan from God?

 

[dad]

What evidence do you have that says our space does not go all the way?

Science has none. Either way! So why would I not be open minded enough to consider the possibility there really might be a spiritual component?

I see nothing there that invalidates all of science. Just new information that requires a new model. That's the beauty of science. It adapts to new information. We use new information to increase outr knowledge.

It shows their predictions are junk. Since they scramble faster than ants to get some new same state explanation, their new invalid claims can't be tested yet.

But you didn't say stellar evolution. You need to be more clear.

All the same. A lie. No proof. Anti God fables high or low.

Who cares? Anyone who wants to find out what the universe is really like should care.

So I guess that discounts you.

Caring does not mean making stuff up! It will be changed anyhow. I will find out soon. All believers will. We have forever to live and we will live in the real realm. Wasting money propping up anti God lies is no pursuit of knowledge.

I've already told you about the different dating techniques countless times. I don't think you'll read them this time, since you obviously never read them any of the other times I posted them.

No you haven't I doubt you understand any of them. You spam links. You cannot talk details. All decay dating assumes that the present state existed. Get used to it.

Oh, and I'm STILL waiting for specific evidence that supports your position.

What position on what?

 

[Mikecpking]

What, micro fossils? Show the basis for declaring a rock pre Pangaea? Then show what fossils.

You better get your facts right first.

Anything pre Jurassic like Permian fossils would have been before the formation of pangea so where does that fit in?

Pangaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hedrick]

In response to the title of the original post:
When we look out to the furthest reaches of our universe, we see the cosmic microwave background, which is uniform to one part in 100,000. That is extremely uniform. Furthermore, when we attempt to fit a universe which varies in distance from us, we find it doesn't fit our best data (e.g. the distributions of galaxies). So, our universe is highly homogeneous. This is an observational fact.

Indeed. To respond to another early posting, the uniformity was actually a bit unexpected. The best explanation, for reasons you can read elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia's excellent articles on the universe), is that the universe expanded very, very rapidly during the first very, very small fraction of a second. While it's true that the universe is currently expanding, that expansion is nothing compared with this initial period of "inflation." The passage quoted about God stretching out the universe would in fact fit quite nicely with this initial period of inflation, since that inflation could reasonably be described as a stretching of space-time.

 

[dad]

You better get your facts right first.

Anything pre Jurassic like Permian fossils would have been before the formation of pangea so where does that fit in?

Pangaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"My" facts?? I thought I asked you a question? Firstly name any fossil anywhere before the KT layer that you think was before the separation of continents, and show the evidence?

Not sure how you think science knows when the separation took place. In fact, they likely do not even know of the creation week separation. In any case, I see no fossil anywhere that is the slightest problem for me.

 

[dad]

Indeed. To respond to another early posting, the uniformity was actually a bit unexpected. The

Ha. Even the touted predictions seem to be falling here....

best explanation, for reasons you can read elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia's excellent articles on the universe), is that the universe expanded very, very rapidly during the first very, very small fraction of a second.

That is the best explanation you can think of or find!!!? Wild conjecture with no basis in fact.

While it's true that the universe is currently expanding, that expansion is nothing compared with this initial period of "inflation."

No. Redshift is no reason to assume an expanding heavens or expanse or 'space'. While it may be true you believe that our laws and light and space exist out where the redshift is, what is true, is just that you do NOT actually know that.

The passage quoted about God stretching out the universe would in fact fit quite nicely with this initial period of inflation, since that inflation could reasonably be described as a stretching of space-time.

No. That could not possibly fit. God said more than one thing. Context. One can't take some stretching out the actual expanse or heavens at creation week, (where water was on the far side as well as earth side by the way --water that came down in the flood later) to mean that the stars were created before earth. Earth was first, any stretching came later! He also knows the stars by name, if I recall.

He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name.
Psalms 147: 3-4

God has their number!


Try to pick one side or the other.

 

[Chalnoth]

Indeed. To respond to another early posting, the uniformity was actually a bit unexpected. The best explanation, for reasons you can read elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia's excellent articles on the universe), is that the universe expanded very, very rapidly during the first very, very small fraction of a second. While it's true that the universe is currently expanding, that expansion is nothing compared with this initial period of "inflation." The passage quoted about God stretching out the universe would in fact fit quite nicely with this initial period of inflation, since that inflation could reasonably be described as a stretching of space-time.

Well, this is perhaps being a little bit pedantic of me, but the level of variation is right around what was expected, not because of arguments regarding what was going on in the early universe, but instead because it had to be around the level of what was observed in order to explain the galaxies and galaxy clusters that we saw. Granted, our error bars were quite large before we launched the COBE satellite, but they couldn't have been different by more than about an order of magnitude.

The issue that you're talking about is a little bit different. If you simply take the standard big bang theory, with normal matter, radiation, and a cosmological constant, then that theory cannot explain any level of uniformity in the early universe. The uniformity is an input to the theory, but it actually predicts that different parts of the sky have never been in contact with one another. Inflation is a proposed solution to this because it modifies the early expansion history, bringing everything that we observe into contact in the early universe.

Most people think inflation very likely today because inflation not only explains why different parts of the universe actually were in contact in the past, but also provides a physical mechanism for producing the seeds for the small deviations from perfect uniformity. And those deviations from uniformity, the parts on the CMB that are warmer or cooler at the 0.001% level show the exact sort of pattern we expect from inflation.

There are, however, other proposed explanations. For example, loop quantum cosmology attempts to explain the early expansion history not by proposing a new component of the universe, but instead by proposing a new theory of gravity (loop quantum gravity) and estimating how that theory modifies the early expansion. The ekpyrotic (meaning "conversion into fire") theory is another alternative which sees our universe as being stuck on a sort of sheet in a higher-dimensional space (this is based upon string theory), and the hot early universe was produced when the sheet (or brane) containing our universe collided with another, heating up both branes to a very high temperature across the entire surface of the collision basically at the same time.

The hope is that in the next few decades we can distinguish between these theories through measurements of the polarization of the CMB. Planck is going to try to measure the polarization, but we'd have to be really really lucky on the level of polarization in the CMB for Planck to see it.

 

[Tiberius]

Science has none. Either way! So why would I not be open minded enough to consider the possibility there really might be a spiritual component?

Please read what I asked. I asked what evidence YOU have. I am not interested in your opinion of what evidence I present.

So I will ask you again - what evidence do YOU have to support your position? All you said there was that since you don't consider that science has any evidence, it can't prove that your position is wrong, and thus you remain open to it. However, you don't seem to realise that a lack of evidence for my position does not equate to evidence supporting your position.

It shows their predictions are junk. Since they scramble faster than ants to get some new same state explanation, their new invalid claims can't be tested yet.

You are wrong. it shows that when predictions do not match what is found in reality, the old model is thrown away. And that is exactly what has happened here.

All the same. A lie. No proof. Anti God fables high or low.

You think stellar evolution is the same as biological evolution? Your knowledge about real science is woeful.

Caring does not mean making stuff up! It will be changed anyhow. I will find out soon. All believers will. We have forever to live and we will live in the real realm. Wasting money propping up anti God lies is no pursuit of knowledge.

You are the one making stuff up. However, if you have actual evidence, feel free to post it.

No you haven't I doubt you understand any of them. You spam links. You cannot talk details. All decay dating assumes that the present state existed. Get used to it.

You dismiss my arguments without understanding them. I have pointed them out to you and you dismiss them. The fact that you can't remember doing it just goes to show that you dismiss them without actually reading them.

What position on what?

Are you having another bout of amnesia? You really ought to get that looked at.

I am asking if you have any evidence that supports your position that the laws of the universe were different in the past or in other areas of the universe. Something specific.

 

[dad]

Please read what I asked. I asked what evidence YOU have. I am not interested in your opinion of what evidence I present.

For...what?

So I will ask you again - what evidence do YOU have to support your position? All you said there was that since you don't consider that science has any evidence, it can't prove that your position is wrong, and thus you remain open to it. However, you don't seem to realise that a lack of evidence for my position does not equate to evidence supporting your position.

So you admit lack of evidence for your position! Pretty sad comment on your position.

As for my 'position' I have a lot of them on a lot of issues. You will need to be more specific.

You are wrong. it shows that when predictions do not match what is found in reality, the old model is thrown away. And that is exactly what has happened here.

So you admit you throw things away when you get caught. OK. You do realize that pretty well everything gets thrown away? Look at a science book from 70 years ago! That means basically that you have nothing, but it just takes some time to get caught.

You think stellar evolution is the same as biological evolution? Your knowledge about real science is woeful.

Yes. Same sort of nonsense, projected on a different screen.

You are the one making stuff up. However, if you have actual evidence, feel free to post it.

Evidence of an afterlife? Well, that is outside the realm of science. I have witnesses that saw Moses long after He died, and Jesus after He rose from the dead.

You dismiss my arguments without understanding them. I have pointed them out to you and you dismiss them. The fact that you can't remember doing it just goes to show that you dismiss them without actually reading them.

False. You have no clear argument on dating. In your own words, give us one?

Are you having another bout of amnesia? You really ought to get that looked at.

What is it you think I forget this time? Having trouble articulating?

I am asking if you have any evidence that supports your position that the laws of the universe were different in the past or in other areas of the universe. Something specific.

Of course. God's Own words.

 

[dad]

Most people think inflation very likely today because inflation not only explains why different parts of the universe actually were in contact in the past, ...

?? Explain how this contact is arrived at?

 

[Mikecpking]

"My" facts?? I thought I asked you a question? Firstly name any fossil anywhere before the KT layer that you think was before the separation of continents, and show the evidence?

Not sure how you think science knows when the separation took place. In fact, they likely do not even know of the creation week separation. In any case, I see no fossil anywhere that is the slightest problem for me.

Trilobites are fossils one finds which is pre- pangea. The continents were separated before.

The 'KT' boundary marks the end of the cretaceous and pangea was already splitting up.

The evidence to show when the continents plit is literally in the rocks. When they are laid down they left minerals which lines up with the earth's own magnetic field and from that can pinpoint the latitude where they were laid down.

Its all common sense really.