Is A Telescope Probe Observing The Big Bang?

It’s promised mission is to show how the Universe began, then show how did it evolve to the state we observe today, and lastly how will it continue to evolve in the future?  On July 5, 2010, a very expensive telescope named, Plank took an image of the Universe in hopes that it would reveal features of the big bang. One headline put it this way, ” ‘Afterglow’ of big bang captured by satellite.”

How do scientists know that this particular radiation comes from the big bang?  CMBR (known as Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) is very low in temperature and the accepted storyline among secular scientists is about the universe expanding very hot with unobserved putative radiation from the initial putative primordial fireball that cooled down to this radiation we see today.

There have been some questions raised about Microwave Background Radiation, for example back in 2006 it was reported in the Astrophysical Journal where 31 galaxy clusters were studied and no detection of a shadow being cast in their foreground by the CMBR.  As a result, this casts doubt if Microwave Background Radiation is really coming from deep space and it also raises another question, “Why are the clusters so relatively hot? Is there an additional source of emission that cancels out the expected shadow?” If the universe is billions of years old, those clusters wouldn’t be so hot!  This is evidence for a young universe which confirms the Biblical account!

The Plank mission undoubtedly is going to take some specular photographs but it will also raise many new questions (much like what’s been going on with past research) as expectations are not meet which will result in a revise version of the storytelling.  Inferences about the cosmos is not like your local laboratory where one can do a control experiment—send in some radiation and check for a response.

Big Bang proponents and other similar theories proponents are trying to come up with what expanded the Universe by 1070 times which is extremely faster than the speed of light so one needs rescue theories to fix problems that other theories bring out. Is the Planck satellite really tell us something new about the Big Bang? Not really! But it’s not a lost cause either, there are simpler and more viable solutions to the problem as the Institute for Creation Research points out…

“There are scientific solutions to this that involve far fewer assumptions and problems than the Big Bang cosmological model. Two of them rely on Einstein’s well-established general relativity theory. Since time is dependent on the matter in its attendant space, vast eons can elapse “out there” in only seconds of earth time.7 This makes distant starlight reaching earth very possible in a universe only thousands of earth years old. And another scientifically and biblically consistent cosmological solution was recently promised.”

More research maybe published soon! Dr Jason Lisle writes

“It has taken a lot of time and effort, but I have found a solution to distant starlight which allows light to reach earth virtually instantaneously. Moreover, I have found both Scriptural and scientific support for this solution. This has led to the development of a new cosmological model which makes testable predictions. I have nearly finished writing a technical paper on this topic, which will shortly be sent to various experts for qualified peer-review. If it passes peer-review, we will publish the paper in the Answers Research Journal. This is our free, online journal. So be watching for it.”

While the plank probe displays some astounding pictures from deep space, it doesn’t dispute the Bible, only those who believe in naturalism as the creator, does!

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Is A Telescope Probe Observing The Big Bang?

  1. Michael, what IS your problem with the “Big Banng?” — I still have yet to hear a good explanation as to why the Big Bang is either wrong, or anti-christian (as you seem to think it is. . . )

    And while you are answering my question, you can answer Eelco’s as well:

    1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

    And by the way, on my flagellum challenge, I still want a good rebuttal, since you have failed. . . .

    And remember, any failure to give an answer can be understood as an admission that I am right.

    On your attempt to answer my challenge,

    . . . the flagellum IS NOT EVEN IRREDUCIBLE. — G. Kuwajima was able to remove ONE-THIRD of the 497 amino acids from the flagellum, AND IT STILL WORKED PERFECTLY!!!!! . . . Also, we know that the L and the P-rings can be taken away from the flagellum, and it will STILL work. . . .

    You completely failed. You said,

    There is a difference between reducible complexity and irreducible. The Bacterial Flagellum has a universal joint, bushing, stator, rotor, drive shaft, propeller which of course resembles an intelligently designed electric motor made by man.

    The fact that it resembles a man-made motor means absolutely nothing. The person that Michael Behe quote mined even said (in NOVA’s Judgement Day) that the impression Behe gave of that quote was incorrect. He even pointed out that the flagellum still has the features of an organism that evolved.

    I notice that you cite the propellor as part of the so-called essential pieces. . . Are you aware that the propellor of the Eubacterial flagellum itself can be taken apart without harming the function? — You fail.

    You then said,

    It’s these specialized parts that makes up irreducible complexity. Without one of those specialized parts it’s unable to survive. In other words, the system needs those components to exist before it can function and survive.

    This statement presupposes that the original function of the flagellum was ALWAYS the same. The parts of the flagellum have their own functions independent of the actual flagellum, and therefore there is no need to assume that the flagellum had the same function originally.

    In fact, Darwin himself in the 6th edition of Origin of Soecies predicted that there would be change of function as evolution took place. On page 177 of that edition, he said,

    This subject is intimately connected with that of the gradation of characters, often accompanied by a change of function…

    Of course the flagellum could not work in THE SAME WAY if one of those major parts was taken away, BUT it would have had a chance of function as it evolved. The fact that Behe didn’t know that shows he doesn’t understand how evolution works.

    So, in the long hull, yout answer doesn’t work.


  2. “It has taken a lot of time and effort, but I have found a solution to distant starlight which allows light to reach earth virtually instantaneously. Moreover, I have found both Scriptural and scientific support for this solution. This has led to the development of a new cosmological model which makes testable predictions. I have nearly finished writing a technical paper on this topic, which will shortly be sent to various experts for qualified peer-review. If it passes peer-review, we will publish the paper in the Answers Research Journal. This is our free, online journal. So be watching for it.”

    Ah, creationist research! Always in the future. Somewhere over the rainbow.

    .

    One of my patent-attorney colleagues at IBM was a PhD physicist. He was absolutely convinced that Einstein’s relativity was wrong. He spent half his life of spare time trying to demonstrate that. And he almost succeeded. Then he almost succeeded again. Then he very nearly had it. But he never actually quite got there.

    So if your Dr. Lisle can overthrow a century of physics in half a year, …. We’ll be waiting.

    (Incidentally, a recent significant experiment involving a Bose-Einstein condensate in a gravitational field has confirmed another aspect of Einsteinium relativity. But you won’t want to report on that, because it is not science that “verifies God’s word.”)

  3. Kris, while I, too, would be interested in reading Michael’s response to the standard questions now for the last few months, I really gotta say that the claim of, “any failure to give an answer can be understood as an admission that I am right.” This is an incredibly obnoxious criterion and works both ways. Michael Horn, the “authorized American media representative” for the UFO nut Billy Meier, uses this tactic all the time, demanding that skeptics answer or refute his claims and when they ignore him, he claims victory.

    I realize it’s frustrating that Michael hasn’t answered these, especially since #1 and 2 would be simple and take less than 5 minutes for him, but let’s not resort to “if you ignore me, I’m right.”

  4. As a result, this casts doubt if Microwave Background Radiation is really coming from deep space….

    Here we have another failure of comprehension. This time it takes the form of a visualization lapse. Why does Michael think that the cosmic microwave radiation comes form “deep space”—from far away? If the CMBR is a remnant of the big bang in the ever-expanding universe, then it comes from all over, including here. Sort of like ‘love’ in the song: “Love is all around you. / It surrounds you, / Everywhere.”

    It is this kind of failure to grasp basic, fundamental concepts that dooms creationists to perpetual misunderstandings of the subject that they attempt to pervert. Some of the misunderstandings are quite risible.

    But they never seem to comprehend why scientists laugh at them.

  5. Michael: “a very expensive telescope named Plank….”

    Michael: “The Plank mission undoubtedly….”

    Michael: “While the plank probe…”

    Michael: “intelligent design, plank, science….”

    That’s four times in the same post. Could not be an accident. More stupendous ignorance. It’s PLANCK, Michael. MAX PLANCK. Anyone who gets that one wrong has no business discussing anything to do with astronomy or physics.

    Why do creationists have no credibility? Take a guess. (There are a number of correct answers.)

  6. “One of my patent-attorney colleagues at IBM was a PhD physicist. He was absolutely convinced that Einstein’s relativity was wrong. He spent half his life of spare time trying to demonstrate that. And he almost succeeded. Then he almost succeeded again. Then he very nearly had it. But he never actually quite got there.”

    Well, if he can improve physics and was that close rather than adding another theory over another, then he shouldn’t be working at IBM anymore!

  7. Stuart,

    So you been waiting for me to reveal things like my blog stats? It appears to be protesting rather than something else. I realize it’s popular in talk-radio to reveal stats and blogs or sites connected with their program, for example, in my locality a creationist draws the number one slot, about 50,000 listeners a week (which doesn’t include podcasts), plus he sometimes hosts on the national scene whose listeners are in the millions and he is also a creationist. Pro-evolution stations with listeners and even a viewing audience is quite small even though it’s dominating in the mainstream media. Why would a person get frustrated over someone else who is not bragging about stats? What’s the relevance of it?

  8. Michael :
    Stuart,
    So you been waiting for me to reveal things like my blog stats? It appears to be protesting rather than something else. I realize it’s popular in talk-radio to reveal stats and blogs or sites connected with their program, for example, in my locality a creationist draws the number one slot, about 50,000 listeners a week (which doesn’t include podcasts), plus he sometimes hosts on the national scene whose listeners are in the millions and he is also a creationist. Pro-evolution stations with listeners and even a viewing audience is quite small even though it’s dominating in the mainstream media. Why would a person get frustrated over someone else who is not bragging about stats? What’s the relevance of it?

    Well, your blog stats were just one minor thing of the four that folks have been asking you for. I’m just curious. The second point is actually reasonably important. Personally, I don’t care about the other two. I hope you also realize that I actually vaguely defended you there, so I’m not entirely sure why you’re attacking me.

  9. Stuart,

    Questioning a person’s reason for something is not attacking them! You didn’t defend me at all, instead you just said it would take 5 minutes. I don’t have to reveal stats and they should respect that decision rather than cut and paste it on each post! I respond differently, for example, one blogger made some erroneous points about Neanderthals and DNA, I waited for more research to come out till I responded…Then I get protests over my conclusions…lol…By the way, one of them said it made no difference in answering the questions but in my response about Neanderthals, he wrote on the other side of his mouth!

  10. I dunno … telling Kris that your failure to respond should not be construed as an admission of whatever seems to me like a bit of defending you. Also, personally, I don’t see what the big deal is about telling people how many folks visit your site. If someone on my blog asked me, I’d tell them. I’ve been interviewed on podcasts before and asked that question, and I didn’t hesitate to answer.

    As for your background, it’s important. A simple example is that I’m an astronomer, so why should anyone pay attention to me if I go out and decide to start writing conclusively about whales. I have no expertise about whales, and there is a high degree of likelihood that I will misunderstand the research. Another example – and more to the point – I wrote extensively about in my post here, on the very common pit-falls of a lay person who tries to do science. You make mistakes that you have no idea you’re making. From what you’ve written on your blog (and I am not attacking you), you appear to (a) not have a background in science, based upon how you write and how you present information, and (b) it’s not really humanly possible to be an expert in everything you have reported on, so it would be interesting to know what your background actually is.

  11. Stuart, the original question about stats was in response to a claim that Michael made to Eelco about his readership. Then Michael failed to defend that claim with his numbers.

    The claim about qualifications was a challenge by Michael that I had insufficient scientific background to controvert him. I disclosed my background. But Michael has never reciprocated.

    So these questions represent failures by Michael to follow through on challenges that he himself had made.

  12. Well, if he can improve physics and was that close rather than adding another theory over another, then he shouldn’t be working at IBM anymore!

    Sorry, Michael, I forgot. Creationists are born without satire detectors.

    My colleague has been dead for many years now. So his labors are at an end. He never got there. But, in the words of Maxwell Smart, he was thiiiiis close!

  13. BTW, Michael, you complain about getting bounced off of Uncommon Descent.

    I am, as we speak, engaged in a discussion on gene regulation over there. Look up “Short peptides from junk RNA regulate fruitfly development”.

  14. Oh, sorry— I do not post on Uncommon Descent as Olorin. Look for “Al Kafir.” (Yes, it’s Arabic. You could look it up.)

  15. I don’t have to reveal stats and they should respect that decision rather than cut and paste it on each post!

    Normally, that might be true. However, when you make a specific claim, are called down on it, and then refuse to provide the data—which is solely under your control—to back up yopur claim, that is a horse of a different feather.

  16. Michael . . . . . . . . . . . July 17, 2010 at 4:43 pm | #9

    I respond differently, for example, one blogger made some erroneous points about Neanderthals and DNA, I waited for more research to come out till I responded…Then I get protests over my conclusions…lol…By the way, one of them said it made no difference in answering the questions but in my response about Neanderthals, he wrote on the other side of his mouth!

    Stuart, that blogger would be moi. Unfortunately, Michael remembers the incident wrongly.[0] Last December, Michael had claimed that Neandertals were the same species as modern humans. I demurred, on the basis of then-current mitochondrial DNA analyses. Five months later, Michael seized upon new evidence[1] from nuclear DNA that Neandertals had interbred with humans in the Middle East briefly about 40,000 years ago

    Michael misunderstood this interbreeding as a “proof” that Neandertals and humans are the same species.[2] In his usual ignorant fashion, Michael simply got the new findings wrong. The fact that he brags about it even now indicates that he still does not understand the new evidence.

    A case of terminal smugness.

    ======================

    [0] Ah, well. As Salvador Dali once noted, “The difference between false memories and true ones is the same as for jewels: it is always the false ones that look the most real, the most brilliant.”

    [1] “Waited for more research” Yeah, sure. No anthropologists expected this result—But Michael was waiting for it. Uh-huh. (See note [0] above.)

    [2] Michael claimed at the time that interbreeding proved this, because everyone knows that different species can’t interbreed. Apparently he had never heard of mules. Apparently he still has not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s