Why evolution is impossible

[Mallon]

You said that you were going to let your comrades deal with the details. You are not a truthful person.

By all means, please cast the first stone, pastor.

 

[Mallon]

from: CE441: big bang, explosions, and information

Claim CE441:

The universe was supposedly formed in the big bang, but explosions do not produce order or information. Source:

Big-Bang-Theory, 2002. http://www.big-bang-theory.com
Response:

1. The total entropy of the universe at the start of the big bang was minimal, perhaps almost zero. Because it was so compact, it had considerably more order than the universe we are in now. The complexity we observe around us today can be produced from the ultimate order of the hot but cooling gas of the big bang.
2. The big bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. Besides the fact that it got bigger over time, the big bang has almost nothing in common with an explosion.
3. Explosions do produce some order amidst their other effects:
   • Large surface explosions, such as nuclear bombs, produce the familiar mushroom clouds. There are not very highly ordered, but they are not purely random, either.
   • Supernovae produce heavy elements, and the shock waves from them compress interstellar gases, which begins the formation of new stars.
   • Powerful explosions can compress carbon into diamond crystals, the most ordered arrangement.
   • Explosions of atomized gasoline produce compressed gas, which is harnessed in internal combustion engines to power automobiles and other equipment.

 

[Calypsis4]

By all means, please cast the first stone, pastor.

The 'first stone'? You did that to yourself when you made it clear about your intended non-participation in this subject. I'm only pointing out what you said.

But you do have this constant propensity for getting involved in things you shouldn't.

 

[Mallon]

from: CE230: Io's volcanism

Claim CE230:

Jupiter's moon Io is volcanic. It is too small for its volcanism to be explained by residual heat of formation or radioactive decay, unless the moon is not millions of years old. Source:

Pathlights, n.d. The age of the earth - 1. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee2.htm
Response:

1. The volcanoes on Io are powered by tidal heating. Io is close to Jupiter, so it is strongly affected by Jupiter's gravity. The other moons of Jupiter exert their own gravitational forces. The resulting tides raise and lower Io's surface by about 100 m, generating frictional heat that drives the volcanoes.

Links:

Wood, Janet Stuhr. 2003. Io: Jupiter's volcanic moon: Tidal heating. Tidal Heating - Io: Jupiter’s Volcanic Moon

 

[Mallon]

c.

We all know that galaxies rotate and their spiral arms usually sweep back, trailing behind the rotation of the galaxy. But a galaxy has been discovered that defies this opinion.It has arms opening outward in the same direction as the rotation of the galaxy's disk.

The galaxy, known as NGC 4622, lies 200 million light years away in the constellation Centaurus. A team of American astronomers analyzed images of the galaxy, and discovered that it has a previously hidden inner counter clockwise pair of spiral arms.

"Contrary to conventional wisdom, with both an inner counter-clockwise pair and an outer clockwise pair of spiral arms, NGC 4622 must have a pair of leading arms," said Dr. Gene Byrd from the University of Alabama. "With two pairs of arms winding in opposite directions, one pair must lead and one pair must trail. Which way is which depends on the disk's.
But what is the problem with this? If you can imagine going to the toy store and asking the proprietor for a pinwheel that spins in both directions at once…you can then begin to grasp the difficulty. (from Astronomy Picture of the Day).

That has nothing to do with the age of the universe.

I think I've managed to refute Calypsis4's arguments so far with the List of Creationist Claims. Did anyone notice if I missed any?

 

[laconicstudent]

I think I've managed to refute Calypsis4's arguments so far with the List of Creationist Claims. Did anyone notice if I missed any?
[/font]

Don't think so.

 

[Calypsis4]

"I think I've managed to refute Calypsis4's arguments so far with the List of Creationist Claims. Did anyone notice if I missed any?"



"Don't think so."

You jokers are living in dream land. He didn't answer ANY of them. He gave opinions, nothing more. What an utterly dishonest thing to say!

 

[Dark_Lite]

Because your cut and paste jobs are so much more authoritative...

 

[Mallon]

You jokers are living in dream land. He didn't answer ANY of them. He gave opinions, nothing more. What an utterly dishonest thing to say!

Just following the same standard of argument you set at the start of this thread.

 

[Calypsis4]

Furthermore, concerning the issue of Sirius being observed as a red giant in ancient times, the following comes from Thunderfoot (evolutionist) website:

Siriusly Red
Aug 14, 2009

"A prime application of the historical method concerns the colour of Sirius A or α Canis Majoris, the brightest star in the night sky. Sirius appears bright white today, but – as the English amateur astronomer, Thomas Barker (1722-1809), first pointed out in 1760 – was emphatically qualified as red in many classical texts. Poetical passages aside, Seneca commented that Sirius was of a deeper red than Mars, while Ptolemy labeled the star “reddish” and grouped it with five other stars, all of which are indeed of red or orange aspect.​

Even as late as the 6th century CE, the Gallo-Roman chronicler, Gregory of Tours, could label the Dog Star rubeola or ‘reddish’. It is claimed that the earliest unambiguous reference to Sirius as a white star is found in the pages of the Persian astronomer, ‘Abd al-Raḥman al-Sufī (903-986 CE).​

What to make of all this? The paradox has sparked a prolonged and fairly intense debate, which has led to a fair number of publications, including Noah Brosch’s recent book Sirius Matters (2008). The evasive explanation that Sirius’s red traced to a simple textual error is easily refuted by the eminent authority of Ptolemy and Seneca as well as the observation that the same attribution is attested in a number of other cultures. For example, the Pawnee, of the North American Plains, associated each of the four intercardinal points with a colour, a type of weather, an animal, a tree, and a star.​

The southeastern corner was the domain of red, the “Red Star” – which might be the planet Mars – and the wolf, explicitly linked to Sirius. Another suggestion, that an optical illusion accounts for the confusion, seems merely a red herring. It may be so that the star, to the unaided eye, often appears to be flashing with red, white and blue hues when near the horizon, but such scintillations would not have deluded such a skilled observer as Ptolemy. The belief in a red Sirius was clearly genuine. But how can it be reconciled with the white hue seen today?​

Two Canadian archaeoastronomers, David Kelley and Eugene Milone, followed a rather more promising direction: “We conclude that the bulk of the evidence supports a literal red Sirius interpretation … Thus, the discovery that the bright star, Sirius, was once described as red, when it is now clearly white, may light up formerly obscure paths of stellar evolution.” The trouble is that, on the current astronomical model of stellar evolution, no shift from red to white is possible over such a short time." ​

Siriusly Red

Notice that last statement. THAT is the reason why the observations many witnesses (even professional astronomers and teachers) gave of a red Sirius is rejected. It is the theory that MUST be conserved, preserved, and salvaged...at all cost. The evidence MUST be consistent with the paradigm of evolution. Any fact which leads us away from the so-called 'fact' of evolution is therefore rejected.

I see this bigotry in every subject related to evolutionary teaching. I see those who are so emotionally committed to the lies of an accidental/incidental universe/world reject every bit of evidence against their theory no matter how solid or reasonable it is. ​

I am an ex-evolutionist. My opponents have give me yet more reasons to remain one.​

 

[Calypsis4]

Because your cut and paste jobs are so much more authoritative...

You still haven't said anything worth a plugged nickel.

 

[Mallon]

Furthermore, concerning the issue of Sirius being observed as a red giant in ancient times, the following comes from Thunderfoot (evolutionist) website:

Siriusly Red
Aug 14, 2009

"A prime application of the historical method concerns the colour of Sirius A or α Canis Majoris, the brightest star in the night sky. Sirius appears bright white today, but – as the English amateur astronomer, Thomas Barker (1722-1809), first pointed out in 1760 – was emphatically qualified as red in many classical texts. Poetical passages aside, Seneca commented that Sirius was of a deeper red than Mars, while Ptolemy labeled the star “reddish” and grouped it with five other stars, all of which are indeed of red or orange aspect.​

Even as late as the 6th century CE, the Gallo-Roman chronicler, Gregory of Tours, could label the Dog Star rubeola or ‘reddish’. It is claimed that the earliest unambiguous reference to Sirius as a white star is found in the pages of the Persian astronomer, ‘Abd al-Raḥman al-Sufī (903-986 CE).​

What to make of all this? The paradox has sparked a prolonged and fairly intense debate, which has led to a fair number of publications, including Noah Brosch’s recent book Sirius Matters (2008). The evasive explanation that Sirius’s red traced to a simple textual error is easily refuted by the eminent authority of Ptolemy and Seneca as well as the observation that the same attribution is attested in a number of other cultures. For example, the Pawnee, of the North American Plains, associated each of the four intercardinal points with a colour, a type of weather, an animal, a tree, and a star.​

The southeastern corner was the domain of red, the “Red Star” – which might be the planet Mars – and the wolf, explicitly linked to Sirius. Another suggestion, that an optical illusion accounts for the confusion, seems merely a red herring. It may be so that the star, to the unaided eye, often appears to be flashing with red, white and blue hues when near the horizon, but such scintillations would not have deluded such a skilled observer as Ptolemy. The belief in a red Sirius was clearly genuine. But how can it be reconciled with the white hue seen today?​

Two Canadian archaeoastronomers, David Kelley and Eugene Milone, followed a rather more promising direction: “We conclude that the bulk of the evidence supports a literal red Sirius interpretation … Thus, the discovery that the bright star, Sirius, was once described as red, when it is now clearly white, may light up formerly obscure paths of stellar evolution.” The trouble is that, on the current astronomical model of stellar evolution, no shift from red to white is possible over such a short time." ​

Siriusly Red

Notice that last statement. THAT is the reason why the observations many witnesses (even professional astronomers and teachers) gave of a red Sirius is rejected. It is the theory that MUST be conserved, preserved, and salvaged...at all cost. The evidence MUST be consistent with the paradigm of evolution. Any fact which leads us away from the so-called 'fact' of evolution is therefore rejected.

I see this bigotry in every subject related to evolutionary teaching. I see those who are so emotionally committed to the lies of an accidental/incidental universe/world reject every bit of evidence against their theory no matter how solid or reasonable it is. ​

I am an ex-evolutionist. My opponents have give me yet more reasons to remain one.​

Here's some more quote mining...

from: Sirius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Red controversy

In 150 AD, the astronomer Ptolemy described Sirius as reddish, along with five other stars, Betelgeuse, Antares, Aldebaran, Arcturus and Pollux, all of which are clearly of orange or red hue.[45] The discrepancy was first noted by amateur astronomer Thomas Barker, squire of Lyndon Hall in Rutland, who prepared a paper and spoke at a meeting of the Royal Society in London in 1760.[46] The existence of other stars changing in brightness gave credence to the idea that some may change in colour too; Sir John Herschel noted this in 1839, possibly influenced by witnessing Eta Carinae two years earlier.[47] Thomas Jefferson Jackson See resurrected discussion on red Sirius with the publication of several papers in 1892, and a final summary in 1926.[48] He cited not only Ptolemy but also the poet Aratus, the orator Cicero, and general Germanicus as colouring the star red, though acknowledging that none of the latter three authors were astronomers, the last two merely translating Aratus' poem Phaenomena.[49] Seneca, too, had described Sirius as being of a deeper red colour than Mars.[50] However, not all ancient observers saw Sirius as red. The 1st century AD poet Marcus Manilius described it as "sea-blue", as did the 4th century Avienus.[51] It is the standard star for the color white in ancient China, and multiple records from the 2nd century BC up to the 7th century AD all describe Sirius as white in hue.[52][53]
In 1985, German astronomers Wolfhard Schlosser and Werner Bergmann published an account of an 8th century Lombardic manuscript, which contains De cursu stellarum ratio by St. Gregory of Tours. The Latin text taught readers how to determine the times of nighttime prayers from positions of the stars, and Sirius is described within as rubeola 'reddish'. The authors proposed this was further evidence Sirius B had been a red giant at the time.[54] However, other scholars replied that it was likely St. Gregory had been referring to Arcturus instead.[55][56]
The possibility that stellar evolution of either Sirius A or Sirius B could be responsible for this discrepancy has been rejected by astronomers on the grounds that the timescale of thousands of years is too short and that there is no sign of the nebulosity in the system that would be expected had such a change taken place.[57] An interaction with a third star, to date undiscovered, has also been proposed as a possibility for a red appearance.[58] Alternative explanations are either that the description as red is a poetic metaphor for ill fortune, or that the dramatic scintillations of the star when it was observed rising left the viewer with the impression that it was red. To the naked eye, it often appears to be flashing with red, white and blue hues when near the horizon.[57]

It's also funny you should accuse scientists of ignoring evidence for a young universe when there is obviously much more evidence for an old universe that you yourself ignore.

 

[laconicstudent]

You still haven't said anything worth a plugged nickel.

Your the one using Answers in Genesis, and opinion quotes as your scientific sources.

 

[Calypsis4]

Your the one using Answers in Genesis, and opinion quotes as your scientific sources.

I am the one quoting evolutionists like Halton Arp, Tift, Cocke, the Burbages, Eric Learner etc. I am the one whose original sources were in secular publications.

Answersingenesis is extremely credible. You are not.

Now bow out of this conversation before you stick your foot in your mouth yet again.

 

[Melethiel]

I always take popular websites, even secular ones, with a grain of salt, because they are not always entirely accurate. I never studied astronomy, so I am not very familiar with these arguments, but would you mind quoting some peer-reviewed articles (in non-creationist journals) discussing your claims?

 

[laconicstudent]

I am the one quoting evolutionists like Halton Arp, Tift, Cocke, the Burbages, Eric Learner etc. I am the one whose original sources were in secular publications.

If those sources weren't peer reviewed, they are worthless.

Answersingenesis is extremely credible. You are not.

The credibility of "Answers in Genesis" is such that it is used as a JOKE in scientific circles. Please try again.

Now bow out of this conversation before you stick your foot in your mouth yet again.

You are the one asserting that Answers in Genesis has scientific credibility.

Do you not see how absurd this is? Answers in Genesis is not peer-reviewed, not run by anyone with a scientific background, is openly biased and uses includes in its domain name the title of a religious text.


Melethiel is right. Popular science sources should always be taken with a grain of salt, and they don't refute actual research.

 

[shernren]

In my undergraduate degree we do research projects over the course of our three years. My most memorable one was last summer, when I spent two months observing angular momentum coupling between optical vortices and low-index dielectric spheres. (Ok, ok, I was spinning hollow glass beads with lasers. When you strip it of all the jargon it sounds ridiculously simple!)

I remember it because towards the last week or two of the project, my supervisor devised an explanation of my data that made little to no sense to me. I went to a different lecturer, got a differing opinion, and thought that it was a much more likely conclusion. In the end, my experimental design was just too ridiculously simple to resolve between my explanation and his (and that's a story in itself).

But this project has stuck with me because it helps me sympathize with creationists (and I was once a YEC myself). I've spoken up at my science lecturers more than once and pointed out mistakes or gaps in their work. Do they claim to be perfect? I've never met a professor who did. I know what it feels like to think the scientific establishment is wrong and you're right.

But (and here's the big but) all this requires effort, and specialization. The only reason I had any right to disagree with my supervisor was because I had spent the past month looking down a microscope at the things I was doing. I knew their behavior inside out; I had done the equations and fiddled with the parameters; for a month nearly all of my attention had been focused on reading up the literature surrounding optical vortices and how they worked. The people at the desk next to mine were working on quantum optics, also using lasers and mirrors and things like that, but for all intents and purposes their topics were as useless to me as the economics or arts being taught halfway across the campus.

By all means, tell us what you think is wrong with the current scientific paradigm of understanding nature. I'm always interested to hear what people like you have to say - partly because part of my interests lie in teaching, and in teaching, one cannot correct an error well unless one understands how the student got to it; partly because people like you remind me that my faith is relevant even though I'm a scientist, even if you and I disagree on exactly how that works.

But stop acting like a kid building sandcastles at a beach.

What you've done up to now is throw out example after example of things where you think science doesn't quite work right. Fine. But do you actually understand anything of what you've said? It took me months of studying lasers-and-nothing-else before I knew enough to start to challenge my supervisor. I don't see a similar kind of dedication from you. I'm not asking you to devote your every waking moment to creationism - I'm just asking that you pick an example, tell us exactly what is happening, and pause, and get ready for the inevitable volley of questions, and actually answer them, instead of just moving on as if nothing has happened.

All these little anecdotes are the scientific equivalents of grains of sand - irritating if you throw them at someone's eyes on in someone's food, to be sure, but they don't amount to much, and they don't amount to much even if you pile them up into a small pile of sand, one that has several thousand grains but can still be swept away by a single wave. Don't waste your time that way. Instead, why don't you take just one example? Make it your focus. Hone it, sculpt it, chisel it. You might start with just one pebble, but you would end up with a sculpture, like Michaelangelo's sculpture of David - one rock, just one, but one that nobody could possibly argue with or refute or answer.

Pick an example, and let's work on it together. I'll be waiting.

 

[Calypsis4]

Things just keep getting worse for those who believe in an accidental and/or incidental universe that just happened to create itself.

Let's discuss the moon again. According to the 'status quo' party line of evolution the moon is a dead world that has had no volcanic activity for hundreds of thousands if not millions of yrs. If evolution were true I would certainly agree with that assessment.

Quote: "There is no longer volcanic activity on the moon. This ended long ago when the moon, being a smaller body than the earth, cooled quickly after it's formation."

Moon

But those who hold to that position are, once again, forced to deny the historical data that supports volcanic activity on the moon. There is plenty of it. Below is a map of the observed volcanic activity on the lunar surface in the last 1,500 yrs. The red dots represent the sites where volcanic activity was observed while the yellow is that which some other unusual phenomena was observed.

1. On the night of June 18, 1178 several Catholic monks witnessed the view of the upper horn of the new moon split and from the division point there was fire, hot coals, and sparks spewing. They saw the phenomena a dozen times or more. After that the area appeared to be blackish in appearance. Not only so but for many days there was a darkening of the moon by great clouds of dust.

This observation was recently verified by the Clementine spacecraft in 1999.It revealed that there was a crater in the exact spot that the monks had designated centuries earlier and that it was 13 miles in diameter, and very fresh in appearance. The craft photographed debris from recent avalanches & cave-ins inside the walls of the crater. The results revealed extensive 'weathering' on a short time scale. This was unexpected by evolutionary predictors.

2. Sir William Hershel and his fellow astronomers observed volcanic activity on several occasions during the yrs 1783 - 1787. He said, "I perceived in the dark part of the moon a luminous spot. It had the appearance of a red star...I perceived three volcanoes...The third showed an actual eruption of fire or luminous matter." (Ley, 1965, p. 71).

3. "On November 2, 1958, the Russian astronomer Nikolai A. Kozyrev observed an apparent half-hour "eruption" that took place on the central peak of Alphonsus crater using a 48-inch (122-cm) reflector telescope equipped with a spectrometer." Wikipedia.

I could go on with numerous other sightings; sightings which hard core Darwinists deliberately ignore because it flies in the face of their theory that the moon is 4.5 billion yrs old and volcanic activity on the lunar object has long since ceased.

Secondly, there is the matter of the red shift quantization. Quantization being defined as "To limit the possible values of (a magnitude or quantity) to a discrete set of values...". In practical terms it means that the stars and/or galaxies are differentiated by discrete distances: ex. 36 km/s, 72 km/s, 108 km/s. etc. This is the discovery of various astronomers over the last two decades such as Tift & his comrade Cocke at the U. of Arizona, Halton Arp, and Napier and Guthrie of Scotland, among others who verified their findings.

Tift said, "There is now very firm evidence that the redshifts of galaxies are quantized with a primary interval near 72 km s-1". (Global redshift quantization, Astrophysical J. 287:492–502, 1984)

Napier and Guthrie were at first skeptical of this news but they did an independent research of the matter themselves and discovered that Tift was right. Others followed suit such as Arp, the Burbiges in Maryland, etc. But the keepers of the most holy relic and priests of evolutionary thought rejected Tifts discoveries because a quantized universe speaks loudly against a naturally developed, incidental universe. It smacks of design and therefore that cannot be tolerated by 'educated people'.

Note: galaxy spectra showing typical ‘absorption’ lines (black against a rainbow-coloured background) produced by hydrogen atoms absorbing light. The more distant the galaxy, the more the lines are shifted to the red side of the spectrum.

Napier and Guthrie reported: "… the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artefacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques. Two galactocentric periodicities have so far been detected, ~ 71.5 km s-1 in the Virgo cluster, and ~ 37.5 km s-1 for all other spiral galaxies within ~ 2600 km s-1 [roughly 100 million light years]. The formal confidence levels associated with these results are extremely high."

[Quantized redshifts: a status report, J. Astrophysics and Astronomy 18(4):455–463, 1997]

Hawkins, Maddox, and Merrifield disagree with these findings and said so publicly. But in their findings the criticism is based on fail to correct for the Earth's motion round the Milkyway's center. By analogy, that's like correcting the conclusions of motion of objects from the vantage point of a moving train by standing on the ground next to the tracks. No wonder they got different results.

The universe was created by God Almighty just the way the written account was given by Moses in Genesis. The scientific facts support that position.

 

[Mallon]

Let's discuss the moon again.

Your moon volcanism argument is refuted here:

CE130: Active moon
Claim CE130:

Lunar activity such as moonquakes, lava flows, and gas emissions indicates the moon's youth. Source:

Pathlights, n.d. The age of the earth - 1. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee2.htm
Response:

1. Moonquakes can be explained by tidal stresses and by lunar contraction (due to the highlands gradually sinking). Moonquakes, in fact, provide evidence that the moon has a solid core, consistent with its old age.
2. There is no evidence for recent lava flows not associated with meteor impacts.
3. Outgassing is consistent with an old moon. It can take a long time for gasses to work their way to the surface.

Further Reading:

LANL. n.d. The Los Alamos built spectrometers. Lunar Prospector Spectrometers: Spectrometers

Secondly, there is the matter of the red shift quantization.

Evidently not settled or near well-accepted:

Redshift quantization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After Tifft made his proposal, discussion of it was generally confined to detractors of standard cosmology.[21] Nevertheless, it was nearly 20 years before other researchers tried to corroborate his findings. After a brief flurry of interest, the consensus in the astronomical community became that any quantization was either coincidental or due to so-called geometrical effects. Current observations and models of large-scale structure models trace filamentarysuperclusters and voids that cause most galaxies in a rough statistical sense to have correlated positions, but such groupings would not allow for a strength of periodicity required if it were a hallmark characteristic of the redshifts of galaxies. As such with exceedingly few exceptions, modern cosmology researchers have suggested that redshift quantizations are manifestations of well-understood phenomena, or not present at all.
In 1987, E. Sepulveda suggested that a geometric paradigm based on the polytrope theory could account for all redshift periodicities, and that:
"The smallest periodicities (Δz=72, 144 km/s) are due to parallel line segments of galactic clustering. The largest (Δz=0.15) are due to circumferential circuits around the universe. Intermediate periodicities are due to other geometric irregularities. These periodicities or apparent quantizations are relics or faithful fossils of a real quantization that occurred in the primordial atom."[22] In 2002, Hawkins et al. found no evidence for a redshift quantization in the 2dF survey and found using Napier's own guidelines for testing redshift periodicity that none, in fact, could be detected in the sample:
Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function.[23] In 2005, Tang and Zhang:
".. used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift[6] models, [..] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. " A 2006 historical review of study of the redshift periodicity of galaxies by Bajan, et al., concludes that "in our opinion the existence of redshift periodicity among galaxies is not well established."[24]
In 2006, Martin Bell and D. McDiarmid, reported: "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model".[25] The pair acknowledged that selection effects were already reported to cause the most prominent of the peaks[6]. Nevertheless, these peaks were included in their analysis anyway with Bell and McDiarmid questioning whether selection effects could account for the periodicity, but not including any analysis of this beyond cursory cross-survey comparisons in the discussion section of their paper. There is a brief response to this paper in a comment in section 5 of Schneider et al. (2007) [26] where they note that all "periodic" structure disappears after the previously known selection effects are accounted for.


I would love to see you and shernren discuss these things further. Why not take him up on his challenge?

 

[shernren]

Claiming that observational data supports redshift quantization is like claiming that all the points line up on the dashed line, except -

- oh wait, no except, that's real data.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0606/0606294v1.pdf

Stop throwing sand at us.