View attachment 32561 2014 Most Notable News: Big Bang Fizzle by Brian Thomas, M.S. * We might learn an important lesson from a bit of embarrassment Big Bang supporters suffered in 2014. In March, mainstream media outlets announced that the BICEP2 radio astronomy telescope team discovered indirect remains of the Big Bang's supposed inflationary period.[SUP]1[/SUP] Headlines identified their astronomical observations as "smoking gun" evidence for the Big Bang itself, but it didn't take long at all for this smoke to clear. The BICEP2 investigators interpreted faint, swirly patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiationmicrowaves that appear to bathe all of outer spaceas sure indicators of a time when the universe's expansion rate inexplicably accelerated many times faster than today's rate. Equally mysterious are the means by which this expansion supposedly slowed. The Institute for Creation Research quickly warned readers to show skepticism over the announcements. And not long after, a flow of secular reports soundly refuted the original "smoking gun" claims.[SUP]2,3,4 [/SUP] The BICEP2 discovery was just dustliterally. The swirly patterns first interpreted as gravity-wave leftovers from inflation turned out to be caused by interstellar dust. Astrophysicist Katherine Mack told ScienceNews, "That's when people got really depressed."[SUP]5[/SUP] A PBS article titled "Inflation, Elation, Deflation" adequately summed up this sad story arc, which clearly conveys the wisdom of waiting for the rest of the story, even in the face of highly qualified scientists who all agree that the whole story is set in the stars[SUP].6 [/SUP]No doubt secular astronomers will shake off the dust and redouble their efforts to promote the godless Big Bang narrative to which they cling, no matter what science actually observes. Meanwhile, those who failed to put the brakes on their Big Bang elation in 2014 saw it dashed upon the rocks of real science. Lesson learned. References Overbye, D. Space Ripples Reveal Big Bang's Smoking Gun. The New York Times. Posted on nytimes.com March 17, 2014, accessed March 17, 2014. ****rt, J. 'Smoking Gun' Evidence of Inflation? Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org March 21, 2014, accessed December 29, 2014. ****rt, J. 'Smoking Gun' Proof of Big Bang Already In Doubt. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org June 6, 2014, accessed December 29, 2014. ****rt, J. 2014. Another Big Bang Blunder. Acts & Facts. 43 (9): 16. Crockett, C. Year in review: Dust obscures possible gravitational wave discovery. Science News. Posted on sciencenews.org December 17, 2014, accessed December 29, 2014. Becker, K. Inflation, Elation, Deflation: Reflecting on BICEP2. The Nature of Reality NOVA blog. Posted on pbs.org October 21, 2014, accessed December 29, 2014. Image credit: NASA. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders. *Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research. Article posted on January 5, 2015. This is just one more example of how wrong evolutionists are and how quick to jump to conclusions that they hope will eventually provide some sort of proof for their religious beliefs. Since the Neo-Darwinists deny any and all scientific discovery that refutes or does not fit into their religious belief system, this will be ignored as are 99% of their other "evidence" for their church's dogma.
The idea that the expansion was faster doesn't seem to jive with the evidence that the expansion is not slowing down, but speeding up. We know the universe is in the process of moving away from some imagined point, from whence it banged. Observation and measurement tells us it is speeding up. So, not sure how the above study changes the idea of a Big Bang. Perhaps you will explain it though.
First, I do not know HOW anyone can claim what the speed of the galaxies moving was even 300 years ago to compare to today. On a separate note, I do not know HOW anyone can claim they can measure the distance to objects in space more than a few light years away, considering the limited base of the ellipse around the Sun used to triangulate distances. It would seem the calculation beyond a certain angle is too speculative. This is not to say I believe the distant galaxies are on the edge of Pluto's orbit, but billions of light years does not seem logical. Taking the apparent difficulty of measuring great distances I have no real opinion of expansion of the universe. I do know the Bible states God stretched out the heavens and both models therefore seem to confirm that statement. [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: - Isaiah 40:22 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding. Jeremiah 51:15 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing. Job 26:7 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Psalms 104:2 The piece shows how those who believe in the big bang rushed to judgement to claim evidence for their latest poof [sic] of expansion was once again a false hope for that which they believe but what they can not see and evidence denies.
They probably wouldn't have to use a time interval of 300 years, but perhaps much shorter than that. I am sure they have accurate instruments to measure, and to determine that slowing is not occurring, but a speeding up. So, its unlike an explosion, for all explosions slow down, or in space where there is no resistance would remain constant. I don't question the speeding up paradigm. I can't wrap my own brain around it though. Didn't they have to imagine dark energy in order to explain it? On scripture that you rely on, I see it as nothing more than man thinking about these things, and then creating ideas, you know, just like the Hindus did. I would never take what man wrote down as actually coming from God, just his own brain. There are some very creative, man created, things written down in various religious scripture, and it varies with the religion. I do think that all religions tap into the Immeasurable, at least real early, and then by creating ideas about what cannot be described, corrupt it. And later on people took the descriptions as truth, when they never were truth, just man's ideas about Truth. This is how you get organized religions, and all lost the original tapping in to the Immeasurable. Man then divided themselves, with each group believing that only themselves were right, and only them had the correct scripture. When all of them were believing in a religion that man corrupted. The power of belief is one of the most powerful things in humanity. Whether its political beliefs, religious beliefs, or scientific beliefs. I think beliefs only happen, in religion, when there is no contact with the Immeasurable, and you have to have a belief as a substitute. Then generally, the killing starts.
By you admission of not relying on man's thoughts and opinions, why does that not seem to translate into your thinking about the non-religious assertions? Once one understands that the giga-distances [sic] are calculated by trigonometry (and of course can not be measured by light reflecting at these distances), the question of minute angles being measured with the tiniest of error factor translating into tens of billions of light years, there seems to be too much taken as assumption to be accurate. BTW, I do NOT rely on Scripture for the science, but, as I have explained repeatedly, science does verify Scripture in almost all ways within the laws of physics. Miracles assumed for both models remain as supernatural miracles.
Calculating intergalactic distances is a reasonably precise process that relies on mathematics and observation. "even 300 years ago" is not even an eyeblink in universal time measured in billions of years, and indicates a dearth of actual knowledge. But I suppose when one relies wholly on creationist apologism it should not be surprising. As for the OP, yet another example of how science works. A claim is made and then scrutinized by many and voila errors are pointed out or confirmation is achieved. the polar opposite of the faith based world view.
It makes you wonder about all the other "facts" of science. Science should be about discovery more than absolutes. Measuring great distances still seems to have significant limitations considering the base of the triangulation used. I do not completely understand the process or how error corrections can be made.
You see one of the most important aspects of science as a weakness, while I see it as a strength. Of course science deals with absolutes. they are often called "laws". But there are innumerable other absolutes within science that have been exploited to provide the technologies of our society. The limitations of one triangulation are overcome by the simple expedient of lengthening the base of the triangle as initial measurements are determined. Given the orders of magnitude increase in our observational and computational technologies, modern cosmology can and does work with infinitesimally small degrees of measurement, to calculate mega measurements.
Jesus (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Christ. Learn the difference between EVOLUTION and COSMOLOGY before you make yourself look even more like an uneducated, ignorant know nothing.
Seriously? Is it that your internet is broken, or could it be you really are this ignorant. "Astronomers use the principle of parallax to measure distances to the closer stars. Here, the term "parallax" is the semi-angle of inclination between two sight-lines to the star, as observed when the Earth is on opposite sides of the sun in its orbit.[3] These distances form the lowest rung of what is called "the cosmic distance ladder", the first in a succession of methods by which astronomers determine the distances to celestial objects, serving as a basis for other distance measurements in astronomy forming the higher rungs of the ladder." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
That was easy, now consider the accuracy of such measuring method. Consider if a cloud, speck of dust, the slightest refraction from any heat source, a meteor or other object passes within the line of sight. The angle is compromised. I can only believe that this basic method, even with powerful computers calculating out to 1,000 decimal places can only get an estimate of the distance to within a few billion light years, if that.
You obviously do not understand the concept of Parallax, nor the idea of observation or confirmation from multiple sources. This suggests a very limited comprehension of the entire scientific process and method. When this is coupled with your obvious limitations where knowledge and critical thought are involved may explain quite a bit about your persona here.
Rather than condemning my understanding, why not (if you are able) correct my misunderstanding without a cut 'n paste since you know how it operates. I'll wait.
It does figure into non religious assertions, and I have talked about that several times on these various threads. I have said several times that when it comes to science, man takes a very limited knowledge, understanding only such a small part of reality, and then makes monumental claims about the nature of reality, using something that has been so tentative, while acting like certainty drives the arguments from the scientific point of view. It is really nothing more than human arrogance, that arises because people cannot grasp just how limited knowledge actually is, as they even ignore the very tentative nature of science, historically. These guys who use science, exclaim certainty, when in fact, they do not have certainty. Yet they will never admit it. This is prolific on both sides. I think only a truly intelligent brain can actually recognize this, an it takes just objectivity to see it. Most people cannot escape their conditioning, and are not even aware that in fact their brains are conditioned. And so, they claim certainty, when it simply doesn't exist. Limited knowledge can never yield certainty about the big questions. Yet the claims will continue to go on...
Your attempt at belittlement due to the use of outside data to answer a question you posed is rather pathetic and indicative of the dodge you seem to use whenever someone either tries to provide data you dislike, or you find yourself in a situation that challenges your neural capacity. You request me to provide information that you are incapable of understanding for some reason....why would I bother to do so under those circumstances. How do we know how far away stars are? We Gots dis thangy that cin see real far off an' stuff. Den we takes too of 'em an look real careful like at shiny blinky stuff upin da sky. Dang if dem to don't sees differnt thangs. Fancy math'matical doohickey stuff den gets ta figurin' aways ta knowin' what fer.
WoW! How true is this? I've always assumed it was arrogance or dogma that stimies an honest intelligent debate. It is difficult to alter certain beliefs and convince someone to recognize when they have made a poor argument, myself included. I tried beating the drum with my children to listen, read and think critically and to question absolutes. It is funny to me when I hear them repeat my words back to me in a discussion or an argument.
As expected. You make a statement we are supposed to believe without any references or corroborating evidence, and when pressed to the wall for such evidence, you get snide. Now you are off the hook, right?
Look little man...you asked a question to which I replied with the actual data used to calculate the answers. You then try to bash me for doing so out of either ignorance or spite. I react with an acceptable level of returned spite but in a humorous way and with significantly more stylish thought, and you then try to claim some type of success in your dismal failure. There is a very good reason so many here tend to avoid you...
I knew the answer before I asked it and I understand the limitations of the different methods of calculating great distance measurements, but you don't seem to. You and other folks here tend to believe whatever is proclaimed by anyone who supports your belief system and never critically discern what is actually being presented or why. Parallax is one method, surface brightness and something called Cepheid Variables among other methods. All of these have problems and are only accurate to certain distances only a small percent of the calculations. So great distances are still mostly assumptions when measured against each other. I don't necessarily doubt the calculations, but when critically reading the methodology used shows these distances are educated guesses. I am all for ratcheting down the personal quips, and I'll apologize for my snide remarks.
Using that same logic, we can't know the distance between two points in Los Angeles and New York within less than 100 miles because the 12 inch ruler has a margin of error of 1/32 of an inch.
