Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

[Clete]

The fact remains that redshift exists, and measurements of it show structure on a universal scale.

To be more clear, it's cosmological redshift that is being questioned, not Doppler effect redshift.

Here's the thing, I don't believe it is either. Your past arguments on the topic have convinced me that it is not.

I've always considered redshift (and blueshift, for that matter) to be caused by motion, not by distance, specifically motion towards or away from an observer, which fits, considering scripture plainly telling us that God stretched out the heavens, which is a matter of motion, or more accurately, velocity, in the direction of "away" from earth. This even fits with the idea proposed on https:/kgov.com/stretch that "God pulled the light from the stars," in that He did so while moving the stars away from the earth.

Except that there is more redshift than can be accounted for by simple physical motion of an object relative to us.

There are things that are so red shifted that things that supposedly started off producing light in the visible spectrum are now mostly in the infrared. There is no amount of speed that could ever cause that much shift. The explanation is that space has been stretching itself out for so long a period of time that the wave length of the light has been likewise stretched into the infra red.

Doppler effect red and blue shifts are quite small by comparison because the objects motion relative to us is a tiny fraction of the speed of light.

I think the problem I'm seeing is that what you've said so far is based on a lack of evidence, rather than positive evidence for either side.

To be sure, the universe either has or does not have a center and edges (or at least, a boundary where "matter is present in this location" ends and sheer vacuum (where no matter is present) begins). There's no in between.

But so far, you've simply asserted that there is no center because there is no evidence for it, but this is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy, which I will address in responding to your reply to Stripe below:

Actually, all I've said is that there is no evidence for a center.

Upon what basis do you assert that the universe is infinite?

It almost seems like you're begging the question...

The idea that space has an edge implies that space exists at all. I have no good reason to believe that it does. It seems to me that space is as much an idea as time is. Time is the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. Likewise, space is the distance between and the position of, objects relative to other objects. If that is so then it is meaningless to speak in terms of space having a defined size or boundary. In such a case it would be, in effect, infinite and thus without a definable center.

Saying it doesn't make it so, though. Hence my above question.

It doesn't make if false either.

I cannot prove a negative. If you think there is evidence for a center of the universe then it would be your burden to produce it.

This is begging the question that there is no center.

No, it isn't.

The idea that there is a center is a conclusion that requires premises in the form of evidence. If there is no evidence, it doesn't prove that a center doesn't exist but any suggestion that there is would be speculation.

But the fact remains that it does, in fact, have an effect, even if it is infinitesimally (man, that's a word I haven't typed in a while, lol) small.

It is vanishingly small to the point of virtual non-existence. It would literally only exist in a theoretical/mathematical sense. There is no force of any measurable kind that would not overwhelm it. The very act of attempting to measure it would totally obscure its existence by several orders of magnitude. No matter how you cut it, being at the center of the universe would have no detectable effect due to gravity whatsoever.

Something else I want to point out regarding center of mass that should help us in determining if there is a center that seems to have been forgotten...

Center of mass? That's a different subject.

The so-called "Axis of Evil" indicates a north and south pole for the universe.

CMB: Real Science Radio on the Axis of Evil | KGOV.com

kgov.com

I would argue that if the universe were infinite, then there would be no indication whatsoever that it has an axis, which is, per the Cambridge dictionary, "a real or imaginary straight line going through the center of an object that is spinning, or a line that divides a symmetrical shape into two equal halves."

axis

1. a real or imaginary straight line going through the centre of an object that…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Only meaningful if space is something other than an idea.

The center of mass is a different notion but even then, there would be absolutely no detectable effect related to gravity at the center of mass of the universe. Imagine yourself at the dead center of a Dyson Sphere or better than that, image that the Earth was hollow and at the center of it was a habitable bubble where the whole mass of the Earth was surrounding you but not crushing you into a hot cinder. The effect you'd feel in terms of gravity, would be the same as if you were the Earth itself. You'd be in free fall toward the Sun but moving laterally at a rate sufficient to keep the Sun's surface at the same distance from you. In short you'd be in orbit around the Sun and would feel just as weightless as astronauts do on the Space Station when they are in orbit around the Earth.
You could extend the concept to the Sun. If you were at its center then you'd be the center of gravity for the Solar System and aside from the gravitational effects of the planets, you wouldn't feel the gravitational effects of ANYTHING whatsoever to any degree that is measurable. As far as gravity is concerned, outside the solar system objects, there is nothing having any gravitational effect on the Sun.
This fact is central to the reason why they felt the need to come up with the rescue device that we call "Dark Matter".

 

[Right Divider]

It's the same thing.

Distance and motion are two different things.

The same theory behind redshift distance correlation is the same theory that suggests that everything is moving a way from us.

The "distance correlation" is called motion.

There's way too much redshift than can be accounted for by the bodies physical motion through space.

No argument there.

It's all predicated on the idea that space itself has been stretching for hundreds of billions of years.

Which we know is incorrect.

The redshift data would suggest that everything is moving away from everything else (mostly). Stuff isn't moving away from us any more than its moving away from Alph Centuri or the Andromeda Galaxy. Every point in space, based on the redshift data, appears to be the center as much as any other point.

Interesting.

 

[Stripe]

It's the same thing. The same theory behind redshift distance correlation is the same theory that suggests that everything is moving a way from us. There's way too much redshift than can be accounted for by the bodies physical motion through space. It's all predicated on the idea that space itself has been stretching for hundreds of billions of years. The redshift data would suggest that everything is moving away from everything else (mostly). Stuff isn't moving away from us any more than its moving away from Alph Centuri or the Andromeda Galaxy. Every point in space, based on the redshift data, appears to be the center as much as any other point.

That's the interpretation based on the assumption of an inflationary — Big Bang — cosmology, right? Inflationary red shift.

I don't think any of us subscribe to the notion of Big Bang redshift.

However, motion-derived — Doppler — redshift is certainly at play.

Moreover, depending on when stars were created compared with the "stretching of the heavens," there might also be a "stretching" factor to Z values.

 

[Stripe]

To be more clear, it's cosmological redshift that is being questioned, not Doppler effect redshift.

Sorry. I didn't see the two most recent posts before my one above.

Agreed!

Except that there is more redshift than can be accounted for by simple physical motion of an object relative to us.

I think the order of the stretching and the creation of stars might be a key. It's a subject that I've pondered, but can't reconcile.

Actually, all I've said is that there is no evidence for a center.

You understand that with a simple concept of universe — ie, that it is merely defined by what has been created and with the assumption that matter is finite — a center is necessary, right?

The idea that space has an edge implies that space exists at all. I have no good reason to believe that it does.

The simple concept of the universe would define the edge of the universe as the most-distant matter. Space is infinite.

It seems to me that space is as much an idea as time is. Time is the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. Likewise, space is the distance between and the position of, objects relative to other objects. If that is so then it is meaningless to speak in terms of space having a defined size or boundary. In such a case it would be, in effect, infinite and thus without a definable center.

I would agree, but that would be to ignore the mass, which is what defines the universe.

 

[Clete]

Distance and motion are two different things.

Yes but not completely different. One is static the other dynamic but both have to do with an objects position relative to other objects. Its the equivalent difference as that between sequence and duration.

The "distance correlation" is called motion.

Not according to redshift theory it isn't, at least not in the way you mean it here. The idea isn't that the object's redshift is created because of motion through space relative to us but that its created by the stretching of space itself. The motion relative to us is only "apparent" and any motion of the body through space itself would be considered Doppler Redshift rather than Cosmological Redshift.

 

[Clete]

That's the interpretation based on the assumption of an inflationary — Big Bang — cosmology, right? Inflationary red shift.

I don't think any of us subscribe to the notion of Big Bang redshift.

However, motion-derived — Doppler — redshift is certainly at play.

The problem is that there is way more redshift than can be accounted for by the Doppler Effect alone.

Moreover, depending on when stars were created compared with the "stretching of the heavens," there might also be a "stretching" factor to Z values.

That would account for the extra redshift but would not account for the anomalies discovered by Alton Arp such as the ones depicted in the image I posted the other day. No amount of space stretching or Doppler effect could account for wildly different z values within closely associated celestial bodies, not to mention quantized jumps in redshift values that are relative to the distance a quasar is from its "parent" galaxy.

In short, there is clearly something we do not understand about what causes redshift to happen.

 

[Clete]

Sorry. I didn't see the two most recent posts before my one above.

Agreed!



I think the order of the stretching and the creation of stars might be a key. It's a subject that I've pondered, but can't reconcile.



You understand that with a simple concept of universe — ie, that it is merely defined by what has been created and with the assumption that matter is finite — a center is necessary, right?



The simple concept of the universe would define the edge of the universe as the most-distant matter. Space is infinite.



I would agree, but that would be to ignore the mass, which is what defines the universe.

I agree that the center of a thing is relative to the limits of that thing. If the universe has a limit then it has a center, if not of space then a center of mass. In other words, I have no argument having to do with the meaning of the word "center".

We do not have any evidence that the universe has limits. Perhaps it does. Perhaps it doesn't. God could just as easily made it either way. In either case is is well beyond large enough that we almost certainly will never know this side of the Pearly Gates.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's the same thing.

Motion and distance are the same thing?

Velocity (ie, motion) is distance divided by time (V = d/t). They are certainly related, but definitely not the same.

The same theory behind redshift distance correlation is the same theory that suggests that everything is moving a way from us. There's way too much redshift than can be accounted for by the bodies physical motion through space. It's all predicated on the idea that space itself has been stretching for hundreds of billions of years. The redshift data would suggest that everything is moving away from everything else (mostly). Stuff isn't moving away from us any more than its moving away from Alph Centuri or the Andromeda Galaxy. Every point in space, based on the redshift data, appears to be the center as much as any other point.

OBVIOUSLY I don't believe that the universe has been in existence for hundreds of billions of years (or however old they're claiming the universe is these days).

I'm simply saying that the data we're getting is likely explained by something that has been missed by the secular scientists (or ignored, as the case may be), that being God stretching out the heavens.

To be more clear, it's cosmological redshift that is being questioned, not Doppler effect redshift.

Agreed.

Except that there is more redshift than can be accounted for by simple physical motion of an object relative to us.

There are things that are so red shifted that things that supposedly started off producing light in the visible spectrum are now mostly in the infrared. There is no amount of speed that could ever cause that much shift.

Does that include or exclude things literally being moved by God at literal godspeed?

The explanation is that space has been stretching itself out for so long a period of time that the wave length of the light has been likewise stretched into the infra red.

Which "long periods of time" we don't believe in.

I'm saying there's another explanation for it that has been shunned by the people who claim billions of years.

Doppler effect red and blue shifts are quite small by comparison because the objects motion relative to us is a tiny fraction of the speed of light.

View attachment 5886

No argument there!

Actually, all I've said is that there is no evidence for a center.

But then you asked "what's infinity divided by 2?"

You also said this:

We are as much at the center of the universe as is anything else is so far as it make sense to speak about the center of the universe.

Maybe you can see my confusion?

The idea that space has an edge implies that space exists at all. I have no good reason to believe that it does. It seems to me that space is as much an idea as time is. Time is the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. Likewise, space is the distance between and the position of, objects relative to other objects. If that is so then it is meaningless to speak in terms of space having a defined size or boundary. In such a case it would be, in effect, infinite and thus without a definable center.

Right, I agree with all of this. But I wasn't talking about "space," and clearly stated (though it seems you missed it) the following:

To be sure, the universe either has or does not have a center and edges (or at least, a boundary where "matter is present in this location" ends and sheer vacuum (where no matter is present) begins). There's no in between.

See the difference?

It doesn't make if false either.

I cannot prove a negative. If you think there is evidence for a center of the universe then it would be your burden to produce it.

And I did.

No, it isn't.

Supra.

The idea that there is a center is a conclusion that requires premises in the form of evidence.

How about the philosophical argument that humanity (and earth, for that matter) are special, and therefore, being created by the same Creator that made the Universe, would be in a special place within that universe.

If there is no evidence, it doesn't prove that a center doesn't exist but any suggestion that there is would be speculation.

I also provided the CMB "Axis of Evil" which I see you addressed below.

It is vanishingly small to the point of virtual non-existence. It would literally only exist in a theoretical/mathematical sense. There is no force of any measurable kind that would not overwhelm it. The very act of attempting to measure it would totally obscure its existence by several orders of magnitude. No matter how you cut it, being at the center of the universe would have no detectable effect due to gravity whatsoever.

How about being at the edges of the universe? Everything in the universe pulling you back towards it.

Center of mass? That's a different subject.

It was something regarding what Stripe said.

Only meaningful if space is something other than an idea.

Even considering this?

To be sure, the universe either has or does not have a center and edges (or at least, a boundary where "matter is present in this location" ends and sheer vacuum (where no matter is present) begins). There's no in between.

The center of mass is a different notion but even then, there would be absolutely no detectable effect related to gravity at the center of mass of the universe. Imagine yourself at the dead center of a Dyson Sphere or better than that, image that the Earth was hollow and at the center of it was a habitable bubble where the whole mass of the Earth was surrounding you but not crushing you into a hot cinder. The effect you'd feel in terms of gravity, would be the same as if you were the Earth itself. You'd be in free fall toward the Sun but moving laterally at a rate sufficient to keep the Sun's surface at the same distance from you. In short you'd be in orbit around the Sun and would feel just as weightless as astronauts do on the Space Station when they are in orbit around the Earth.

Sure, but the moment you go away from that center a sufficient distance, gravity will pull you more and more back towards the center. Hence why we can stand on the surface of earth, and why apples fall from trees.

You could extend the concept to the Sun. If you were at its center then you'd be the center of gravity for the Solar System and aside from the gravitational effects of the planets, you wouldn't feel the gravitational effects of ANYTHING whatsoever to any degree that is measurable. As far as gravity is concerned, outside the solar system objects, there is nothing having any gravitational effect on the Sun.
This fact is central to the reason why they felt the need to come up with the rescue device that we call "Dark Matter".

Agreed, but if we're at the center (or just slightly off-center enough to know we're near the center), then what about the things that are NOT near the center, things like galaxies that are trillions of light-years away from us?

Could their distance from the center (IF there is one), along with the gravity of quintillions of stars and other objects, combined with the fact that God stretched out the heavens (literally pulling matter around), and/or pulling light directly from the stars (which would DEFINITELY have some sort of effect on the light itself), be what gives us the results we get for those Z values?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Only meaningful if space is something other than an idea.

Something else...

I don't think you addressed the point I made about the CMB "Axis of Evil."

If there's a north and a south pole to the universe, then, at least on one plane, the universe has limits

Note, I'm NOT talking about "space" here, as per this:

To be sure, the universe either has or does not have a center and edges (or at least, a boundary where "matter is present in this location" ends and sheer vacuum (where no matter is present) begins). There's no in between.

 

[Clete]

Sure, but the moment you go away from that center a sufficient distance, gravity will pull you more and more back towards the center. Hence why we can stand on the surface of earth, and why apples fall from trees.

The entire mass of the universe is pulling on you now and yet the gravitational pull of this tiny little planet has a gigantically larger gravitational effect on you than even the closest star (i.e. the Sun). The walls in the room you are sitting in right now have an enormously larger gravitational effect on you than does the entire Andromeda Galaxy, and the Andromeda Galaxy has way more effect on you than does any other galaxy you care to talk about. The gravitational effect of your own feet has a greater impact on your head than all the mass of even the closest galaxy.

I don't know what else to say to convince you that your position relative to the center or the edge of the universe does not make a hill of beans worth of difference.

Agreed, but if we're at the center (or just slightly off-center enough to know we're near the center), then what about the things that are NOT near the center, things like galaxies that are trillions of light-years away from us?

So far as I know, there is no compelling evidence that we are near the center of the universe.

Could their distance from the center (IF there is one), along with the gravity of quintillions of stars and other objects, combined with the fact that God stretched out the heavens (literally pulling matter around), and/or pulling light directly from the stars (which would DEFINITELY have some sort of effect on the light itself), be what gives us the results we get for those Z values?

God stretching out the heavens could explain a lot of what we observe concerning redshift, yes, but not all of it. It wouldn't explain how closely related objects could have wildly different z values. It also wouldn't explain why z values of quasars seem to by tied to the quasar's distance from its "parent" galaxy and why the z values jump in quantized leaps depending on that distance.

There is very clearly something else besides motion that causes redshift to happen and which, therefore, renders it useless as as means of determining distance.

Something else...

I don't think you addressed the point I made about the CMB "Axis of Evil."

If there's a north and a south pole to the universe, then, at least on one plane, the universe has limits

Note, I'm NOT talking about "space" here, as per this:

I hadn't ever heard of it before and know almost nothing about it other than what I read on Wikipedia and, as much as I despise Lawrence Krauss, I'd have to agree with the following quote in regards to so called "Axis of Evil" issue...

"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales." (Emphasis added)

I've never had much interest in the CMB. It's interpretation has always felt a bit contrived and convenient. I don't think anyone knows what caused it. They just make claims and pretend they know.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The entire mass of the universe is pulling on you now and yet the gravitational pull of this tiny little planet has a gigantically larger gravitational effect on you than even the closest star (i.e. the Sun). The walls in the room you are sitting in right now have an enormously larger gravitational effect on you than does the entire Andromeda Galaxy, and the Andromeda Galaxy has way more effect on you than does any other galaxy you care to talk about. The gravitational effect of your own feet has a greater impact on your head than all the mass of even the closest galaxy.

I agree with this.

I don't know what else to say to convince you that your position relative to the center or the edge of the universe does not make a hill of beans worth of difference.

But it does matter where you're at, IF there's a center.

If there's not a center, then no matter where you are, the pull will be about the same, because there will always be more mass in the direction you go.

Consider this analogy:

You're standing in a large room, with 16 people arranged in a circle around you, with 16 strings leading from each of them to be tied around your waist. Each of them are pulling on you equally. Do you move? No, because the pull is the same in all directions.

Now, what happens if you move OUTSIDE of the ring of people, who are still holding on to the strings attached to your waist, but instead of pulling on you equally, the people closer to you are pulling a little harder, while the ones farther away are pulling slightly less hard? Even if the total amount of force exerted is the same as when you were in the center of the circle with all people pulling equally hard, the fact is that you'll now be pulled TOWARDS the center of the circle of people.

If the universe is infinite in all directions, OR if we're at the center (or at least, close enough to it that the force of all other objects in the universe is more or less equal in all directions, then that would be akin to being in the center of circle of people, above.

HOWEVER, the LATTER example only applies if the universe DOES have a center, and edges, like what I said earlier and higlighted in my recent posts.

It's this "directional pull" towards the center of the universe that DOES NOT EXIST if the universe is infinite in all directions.

So far as I know, there is no compelling evidence that we are near the center of the universe.

How about the idea that we (humanity, earth, mankind) are specially created, the center of God's attention?

Obviously, that's only one witness, and you need two or three to establish a matter, hence why I pointed to the "Axis of Evil," which indicates a north and south pole to the universe, which arguably cannot exist if the universe is infinite in all directions.

God stretching out the heavens could explain a lot of what we observe concerning redshift, yes, but not all of it. It wouldn't explain how closely related objects could have wildly different z values.

Maybe God arranged them at different times? Maybe He moved one object (on a galactic scale), then worked on the surrounding area, then thought that that object would look better with something next to it?

It also wouldn't explain why z values of quasars seem to by tied to the quasar's distance from its "parent" galaxy and why the z values jump in quantized leaps depending on that distance.

Ok.

Question, how much research has been done into the "why" of these sort of things, with the idea that God stretched out the heavens in mind? I would imagine very little...

There is very clearly something else besides motion that causes redshift to happen and which, therefore, renders it useless as as means of determining distance.

How about "when" something was moved and/or given motion?

Obviously, it was all done within one day, but maybe that's enough of a spread for different values?

I hadn't ever heard of it before and know almost nothing about it other than what I read on Wikipedia and, as much as I despise Lawrence Krauss, I'd have to agree with the following quote in regards to so called "Axis of Evil" issue...

"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales." (Emphasis added)

I would argue that much of science would be unaffected even if it turns out that we are in the center of a finite universe, that he's speaking in hyperbole about his own career in science and trying to prove that the universe is billions of years old, though I would definitely agree that there's something wrong with their theories on the larger scales.

By the way, if you haven't already, I recommend going through Bob's article on the CMB, where RSR has collected a ton of evidence and facts regarding it.

CMB: Real Science Radio on the Axis of Evil | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Secular scientists can't answer whether stars or galaxies came first, or the reason we see mature galaxies where, according to their own theories, there should be infant galaxies (the cartoon with the grandpa in the bassinet next to all the newborns in the hospital comes to mind).

I wouldn't give the secular scientist too much credit here, when it comes to matters like this, especially since he rejects the One who made the universe, and is strongly biased against Him.

Remember, it's the secular scientists who make a philosophical argument (not a scientific one) that, because there is no God, therefore we are not in any particularly special position in the universe. THEY are making the clain that we are not in any special position. That puts the onus on them to provide the reasoning.

I've never had much interest in the CMB. It's interpretation has always felt a bit contrived and convenient.

But the fact remains that it exists, and the data indicates a universal pole, and that that pole runs almost strraight through our position in the Milky Way. Does it not?

I don't think anyone knows what caused it.

Obviously, I reject the claim that it was caused by the Big Bang, because God created the universe, not the Big Bang.

But that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

They just make claims and pretend they know.

But we're better than that, of course. So don't give up too early!

 

[Clete]

I agree with this.



But it does matter where you're at, IF there's a center.

If there's not a center, then no matter where you are, the pull will be about the same, because there will always be more mass in the direction you go.

Consider this analogy:

You're standing in a large room, with 16 people arranged in a circle around you, with 16 strings leading from each of them to be tied around your waist. Each of them are pulling on you equally. Do you move? No, because the pull is the same in all directions.

Now, what happens if you move OUTSIDE of the ring of people, who are still holding on to the strings attached to your waist, but instead of pulling on you equally, the people closer to you are pulling a little harder, while the ones farther away are pulling slightly less hard? Even if the total amount of force exerted is the same as when you were in the center of the circle with all people pulling equally hard, the fact is that you'll now be pulled TOWARDS the center of the circle of people.

If the universe is infinite in all directions, OR if we're at the center (or at least, close enough to it that the force of all other objects in the universe is more or less equal in all directions, then that would be akin to being in the center of circle of people, above.

HOWEVER, the LATTER example only applies if the universe DOES have a center, and edges, like what I said earlier and higlighted in my recent posts.

It's this "directional pull" towards the center of the universe that DOES NOT EXIST if the universe is infinite in all directions.

It wouldn't matter. I'm telling you that it just would not matter. You just cannot seem to grasp how unbelievably tiny the gravitational effects are of distant objects.

Note the highlighted portion of your statement above. The gravitational effect of far distant objects is so immeasurably small that the force of all of the objects is "more or less equal in all directions". It is "more or less" zero in all directions.

How about the idea that we (humanity, earth, mankind) are specially created, the center of God's attention?

That is not evidence, nor would any particular position within God's universe be necessary for Him to center His attention on us.

Obviously, that's only one witness, and you need two or three to establish a matter, hence why I pointed to the "Axis of Evil," which indicates a north and south pole to the universe, which arguably cannot exist if the universe is infinite in all directions.

I wouldn't put much stock in the Axis of Evil idea. There's a whole lot of possibilities in regards to this "north and south pole" notion. I would be inclined to believe that it is an artifact of our data collection than it has anything to do with anything intrinsic to the CMB.

Maybe God arranged them at different times? Maybe He moved one object (on a galactic scale), then worked on the surrounding area, then thought that that object would look better with something next to it?

No. Don't resort to the same sort of ad hoc rescue devices that Big Bangers do.

If scientists started thinking like this then there're no chance at all that it'll ever get figured out.

Ok.

Question, how much research has been done into the "why" of these sort of things, with the idea that God stretched out the heavens in mind? I would imagine very little...

Probably, none at all.

It isn't necessary though. That's one of the advantages of having a rational worldview. You can benefit from the work of unbelievers to the degree that their work is rational. The data doesn't care what the scientist's beliefs are.

How about "when" something was moved and/or given motion?

Obviously, it was all done within one day, but maybe that's enough of a spread for different values?

Again, ad hoc explanations are less than desirable.

I see no reasonable way around the conclusion that the existence of these redshift anomalies means that redshift must be caused by something other than just an object's movement and so I'd don't see how it's relevant whether God's stretched out the universe or not.

Incidentally, the idea that God stretched out the heavens is not something we should cling to in any dogmatic fashion. The language could simply be figurative.

I would argue that much of science would be unaffected even if it turns out that we are in the center of a finite universe, that he's speaking in hyperbole about his own career in science and trying to prove that the universe is billions of years old, though I would definitely agree that there's something wrong with their theories on the larger scales.

By the way, if you haven't already, I recommend going through Bob's article on the CMB, where RSR has collected a ton of evidence and facts regarding it.

CMB: Real Science Radio on the Axis of Evil | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Secular scientists can't answer whether stars or galaxies came first, or the reason we see mature galaxies where, according to their own theories, there should be infant galaxies (the cartoon with the grandpa in the bassinet next to all the newborns in the hospital comes to mind).

I wouldn't give the secular scientist too much credit here, when it comes to matters like this, especially since he rejects the One who made the universe, and is strongly biased against Him.

Well, my agreement with that one quote is not in any way an endorsement of his work, his attitude or anything else. I simply agree that what he said was accurate. I have no doubt that he'd agree with me when I say the Sun rises in the East, right? That wouldn't be him endorsing my Christian beliefs.

Remember, it's the secular scientists who make a philosophical argument (not a scientific one) that, because there is no God, therefore we are not in any particularly special position in the universe. THEY are making the clain that we are not in any special position. That puts the onus on them to provide the reasoning.

No. I've have never heard any atheist make such an argument where our non-special position in the universe is a conclusion based on the premise of God's non-existence. On the contrary, when they talk about our position in the universe it seems to always be in response to a Christian who is arguing that we are at the center of the universe, a contention that there is simply no good evidence for. It's a left over from when the church excommunicated Galileo for his discoveries associated with the telescope. It isn't their fault that people on our side make (made) claims that cannot be established with data driven evidence.

Also, as you probably already know, science cannot be done apart from philosophy. Science is philosophy. What we call science today used to be called "Natural philosophy" a hundred years ago and for good reason.

But the fact remains that it exists, and the data indicates a universal pole, and that that pole runs almost straight through our position in the Milky Way. Does it not?

Maybe.

Define "almost straight through". It is off by a mile or a light year or a thousand light years or what?

Why would it be anything other than "exactly straight through" if we're in the special position relative to the lifeless expanse of the universe that God wanted us to be in?

Obviously, I reject the claim that it was caused by the Big Bang, because God created the universe, not the Big Bang.

But that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

The point is, however, that everything about it, other than its measured existence is speculation. If there seems right now to be a slight difference between the top half of the data and the bottom half then maybe we'll find out that this difference doesn't really exist and that its an artifact of something in the instrumentation or an artifact of our existence within a magnetic field or God only knows what. It really feels to me like the sort of thing you find because you wanted to find it, not because it's actually there.

But we're better than that, of course. So don't give up too early!

Oh, I'm not giving up. I just don't see any evidence that convinces me that we are at the center of the universe and see no biblical or philosophical/theological reason to believe that we ought to be in such a position.

Clete

 

[Stripe]

So far as I know, there is no compelling evidence that we are near the center of the universe.

Quantized redshifts.

 

[Clete]

Quantized redshifts.

Umm...

Huh?

 

[Stripe]

Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show

Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, quantized redshifts show

creation.com

 

[Clete]

Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show

Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, quantized redshifts show

creation.com

From the article sited above....

​

"The groups of redshifts would be distinct from each other only if our viewing location is less than a million light years from the centre."​

That premise is based on the validity of a previous premise stated three sentences earlier....

"According to Hubble’s law, redshifts are proportional to the distances of the galaxies from us."​

​

If redshifts are not proportional to the distances of the galaxies from us, as is proven by dozens of examples, such as the one I've posted below, then the argument doesn't work.

 

[Stripe]

Yeah. I'm not trying to say they have it all figured out. Just letting you know what the evidence is.

 

[Clete]

Yeah. I'm not trying to say they have it so figured out. Just letting you know what the evidence is.

I'm actually quite surprised to hear that main stream science actually acknowledges the existence of quantized redshift in the first place!

I wonder what ad hoc rescue device they'll come up with the keep from having to throw the entire Big Bang theory right in the trash heap of history where it belongs?

 

[Clete]

It's almost as if the folks over at the Thunderbolts Project have been reading this thread.....

 

[Tambora]

Sorry to comment on such and old thread, but this post sparked a thought....

No problem.

It's about the different between "hard science" and sciences like "origin theories" and cosmology.

The idea that "the universe is expanding away from us (earth) at the same speed in all directions" is based on some assumptions about the universe and some observations that are not without problems (red shift). We do NOT have direct observations of these motions of the objects that are at great distances from the earth.

Could be.
I don't give much thought to how science thinks outer space operates because I don't think they have near enough data to be able to say for sure.
But I see nothing wrong with speculating.