Evidence for God from Science

Largest structure in universe discovered
Astronomers have discovered the largest known structure in the universe, a clump of active galactic cores that stretches 4 billion light-years from end to end.
The structure is a large quasar group (LQG), a collection of extremely luminous galactic nuclei powered by supermassive central black holes. This particular group is so large that it challenges modern cosmological theory, researchers said.

The newly discovered LQC is so enormous, in fact, that theory predicts it shouldn't exist, researchers said. The quasar group appears to violate a widely accepted assumption known as the cosmological principle, which holds that the universe is essentially homogeneous when viewed at a sufficiently large scale.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/ ... iscovered/

Another commonly accepted principle of scientific thought has been violated. How is this possible? Maybe the scientific thought was not based on 'scientific' evidence backed by empirically repeatable testing.... Reminds me of the evolutionary belief that all life comes from a single ancestor... of course we don't have the advantage of advancing technology to reveal whether it is true or just a pipe dream like the astrological observation did.

Another commonly accepted principle of scientific thought has been violated.

Assuming that this discovery turns out to be true, then yes, one current theory in cosmology might need revision, or possibly be replaced by some other hypothesis about our place in the universe.

How is this possible? Maybe the scientific thought was not based on 'scientific' evidence backed by empirically repeatable testing....

Or, in reality, it could be that the cosmological principle was based on a set of knowledge when it was proposed, and until now there had been no discoveries that disproved it. You sound like science improving on itself is a bad thing...I mean, if when this theory was proposed and studied it fit our current knowledge and understanding, then why should they have rejected it? You seem to be taking your ability to see current evidence as being reason to mock scientists that never had this information before.

Reminds me of the evolutionary belief that all life comes from a single ancestor...

In a matter of speaking, most scientific theories are essentially the same on that level. They are based on evidence available to scientists and can be altered or usurped as time goes on if sufficient evidence is brought forward against it. In the case of cosmology, discovering astrological bodies and events that seem to violate current mathematical and theoretical models of the universe would be that type of evidence. In biology, you would have to disprove natural selection or find fossils that are completely out of their evolutionary time (rabbit fossils among the dinosaurs) to even start to tear down evolution as a whole. Thus far, no significant evidence against evolution has come to light and no alternative has any significant evidence to challenge evolutionary theory.

In short, your point is somewhat valid that these theories are similar, except that one appears to have been contradicted and one has not.

How is this possible? Maybe the scientific thought was not based on 'scientific' evidence backed by empirically repeatable testing....

Ivellious wrote:Or, in reality, it could be that the cosmological principle was based on a set of knowledge when it was proposed, and until now there had been no discoveries that disproved it. You sound like science improving on itself is a bad thing...I mean, if when this theory was proposed and studied it fit our current knowledge and understanding, then why should they have rejected it? You seem to be taking your ability to see current evidence as being reason to mock scientists that never had this information before.

Or in a more real reality scientists made a proposition beyond any evidence they actually had in hand. Science isn't science if the proposition is untestable. Cosmology is one of the most unscientific studies in existence because frankly they don't have any way to test the majority of their assumptions. Cosmology is only trumped in being unscientific method by astrology.

Reminds me of the evolutionary belief that all life comes from a single ancestor...

Ivellious wrote:In a matter of speaking, most scientific theories are essentially the same on that level. They are based on evidence available to scientists and can be altered or usurped as time goes on if sufficient evidence is brought forward against it.

So what evidence was available for any scientist to assert the cosmological principle?

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the Universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the Universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

See the principle is based on the assumption or strong philosophical position that our one and only unique view is representative of what anyone would be able to see no matter where in the universe they were. This could conceivably have had some traction if in fact there had been multiple observational evidences from multiple universe locations far enough apart to justify such a notion but, as we know this was not the case. The truth is that there was no, and I mean absolutely no evidence that the view from multiple universe locations would be the same. So what we have here is a principle that was asserted which had no empirical evidence to begin with and a bunch of other fools bought into it even though there was zero evidence to convince them of its truth.

Ivellious wrote:In biology, you would have to disprove natural selection or find fossils that are completely out of their evolutionary time (rabbit fossils among the dinosaurs) to even start to tear down evolution as a whole. Thus far, no significant evidence against evolution has come to light and no alternative has any significant evidence to challenge evolutionary theory.

In any scientific endeavor one must first provide evidence for an assumption that is repeatable by others before it is a truly an acceptable scientific proposition. Thus, I do not have to disprove NS until you can show empirical evidence that it can perform as it is "believed" to perform.

If you wish to see fossils that are completely out of their time then look at the beginning of the cambrian or even the beginning of the edicarian and see fossils that have no precursors. Such fossils should not arise without precursors that can be directly tied to them. They simply appear in the record with no prior progression being shown. All you or any other scientist can observe is that complex fully formed life suddenly appears in the fossil record. You and they can imagine there was a progression of precursors prior to them as much as it pleases you but it is after all just an imagination game which ultimately is not scientific. So the fact is that I don't have to place a rabbit in the cambrian since the cambrian fossils are already being observed with no precursor to begin with. Thus, all the fully formed life that suddenly showed up is the proverbial rabbit in the cambrian.

Or in a more real reality scientists made a proposition beyond any evidence they actually had in hand.

If a scientific theory or hypothesis has to first be proven against evidence that will be brought up in the future, then there would be no more science. How can you demand that science be perfectly accurate all the time, down to the last detail, when all the scientists have is the currently available evidence? In this case, no one could have possibly known that there was a massive nebula out there to disprove the cosmological principle because no one had discovered it. So how can you call it bad science if you have the advantage of hindsight?

Science isn't science if the proposition is untestable.

So you are saying cosmology, astronomy, much of geology, much of physics, much of chemistry, paleontology, and numerous other scientific disciplines are all fake/made up/incorrect/bad science? You can take that up with the scientists in those fields.

So what evidence was available for any scientist to assert the cosmological principle?

since you used wikipedia, you should just read a little further down the page to get to the observable evidence and reasoning for positing the cosmological theory:

"The cosmological principle is consistent with the observed isotropy of: (i) the celestial distribution of radio galaxies, which are randomly distributed across the entire sky, (ii) the large scale spatial distribution of galaxies, which form a randomly tangled web of clusters and voids up to around 400 megaparsecs in width, (iii) the isotropic distribution of observed red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies, which implies a uniform expansion of space or Hubble flow in all directions, and (iv) the cosmic microwave background radiation, the relic radiation released by the expansion and cooling of the early universe, which is constant in all directions to within 1 part in 100,000.[3][4] For example, deep sky galaxy surveys, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey[5] or the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey,[6] combine line of sight galaxy positions with red shift data to produce three dimensional maps of galaxy clustering across an estimated area over 4 billion light years wide (a red shift radius of z > 0.20); statistical tests applied to these maps confirm that isotropy applies to different viewpoints within them.[7] The cosmic microwave background is the same from all parts of the sky, yet in cosmological theory these must have originated in completely different parts of the early universe.[8]"

See? They made observations and calculations and made a statement that was consistent with what they saw...welcome to how science works. And indeed, it was testable in the sense that anyone could look at their evidence and see that conclusion from it, and until recently no observation of the universe seemed to violate the statements made.

In any scientific endeavor one must first provide evidence for an assumption that is repeatable by others before it is a truly an acceptable scientific proposition.

Darwin and other scientists/naturalists of his era provided evidence and lines of reasoning to show how the Theory of Evolution was developed. In time, the vast majority of scientists that saw these pieces of evidence were convinced that their reasoning was sound. The tests would stretch over the next century or so, and continue today. Darwin and others made predictions about heredity, systems of heredity, the fossil record, natural selection and other forms of selection. To this day, the basic predictions of evolution have not been contradicted by any evidence out there. What you seem to completely lack an understanding of is that a "test" does not need to be a stereotypical "chemist mixing together chemicals in test tubes and seeing what happens."

macroevolution isnt repeatable or observable, yet it is excepted by evolutionists.
Opps I thought we were talking about science
Sorry, my mistake
Go on with the conversation guys

Or in a more real reality scientists made a proposition beyond any evidence they actually had in hand.

Ivellious wrote: If a scientific theory or hypothesis has to first be proven against evidence that will be brought up in the future, then there would be no more science. How can you demand that science be perfectly accurate all the time, down to the last detail, when all the scientists have is the currently available evidence? In this case, no one could have possibly known that there was a massive nebula out there to disprove the cosmological principle because no one had discovered it. So how can you call it bad science if you have the advantage of hindsight?.

No theory is asked to be tested against any future evidence and I never stated such. A theory has to be backed in it initial point by some experimental evidence otherwise I can assert pink fairies take everything that comes up missing and it would require that you disprove it to eliminate it from consideration. So if you and they wish to assert that the universe looks the same from anywhere in the universe then guess what... You or they have to provide some evidence to initially back the hypothesis and further it must be repeatable by others. So lets see how does one propose that the universe looks the same from anywhere in the universe without having been to anywhere but here? and how would a test be repeatable?.
And note this is not hindsight when we can all see up front that there was absolutely Zero evidence to back such an assumption in the first place. Here check this out... watch carefully now.... Produce the intial empirical evidence to back the hypothesis and is repeatable which backs the concept to the point where it became a logical conclusion to be a principle and a viable theory........... You have the rest of your life to answer that question. I'm not holding my breath though. the funny part is that others get to see you argue for something that you in no way shape or manner can back but its your argument so keep the words coming.

Science isn't science if the proposition is untestable.

Ivellious wrote:So you are saying cosmology, astronomy, much of geology, much of physics, much of chemistry, paleontology, and numerous other scientific disciplines are all fake/made up/incorrect/bad science? You can take that up with the scientists in those fields.

Without looking too far back I am gonna go out on a limb here and say that I did not assert any such range of references in any post in this thread so I will leave this strawman you just made up for you to kill any way you think backs your position.

So what evidence was available for any scientist to assert the cosmological principle?

Ivellious wrote: since you used wikipedia, you should just read a little further down the page to get to the observable evidence and reasoning for positing the cosmological theory:
The cosmological principle is consistent with the observed isotropy of: (i) the celestial distribution of radio galaxies, which are randomly distributed across the entire sky, (ii) the large scale spatial distribution of galaxies, which form a randomly tangled web of clusters and voids up to around 400 megaparsecs in width, (iii) the isotropic distribution of observed red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies, which implies a uniform expansion of space or Hubble flow in all directions, and (iv) the cosmic microwave background radiation, the relic radiation released by the expansion and cooling of the early universe, which is constant in all directions to within 1 part in 100,000.[3][4] For example, deep sky galaxy surveys, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey[5] or the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey,[6] combine line of sight galaxy positions with red shift data to produce three dimensional maps of galaxy clustering across an estimated area over 4 billion light years wide (a red shift radius of z > 0.20); statistical tests applied to these maps confirm that isotropy applies to different viewpoints within them.[7] The cosmic microwave background is the same from all parts of the sky, yet in cosmological theory these must have originated in completely different parts of the early universe.[8]"

See? They made observations and calculations and made a statement that was consistent with what they saw...welcome to how science works. And indeed, it was testable in the sense that anyone could look at their evidence and see that conclusion from it, and until recently no observation of the universe seemed to violate the statements made.

See they looked from our vantage point in space and made an assertion based on that look which encompassed the universe. They stated specifically that from anywhere in the universe, the universe would look the same so no matter how many observations they took and how many rationalisations they made the fact is plain and simple they never checked the view from anywhere else in the universe to check and see if their initial assumption was correct. Essentially they made an assumption with no way to test it when it was made. Thus and therefore it is an untested hypothesis with no more traction than pink fairies. It is like asserting that all swans in the world are white because all the swans you can view from your window are white...
Should we make a principle that encompasses the universe based on a single point of reference that is not empirically justifiable until someone can travel far enough into the universe to give other points of view to confirm or deny the assertion?
You are certainly welcome to assert that such is a reasonable way to perform science but there are a great many who do not agree with such a method as being scientific. There are multiple universes right? the big bang occured when two parallel branes collided right? all part of cosmological hypothesis with absolutely no way to initially test them. Should we make them principles too?

In any scientific endeavor one must first provide evidence for an assumption that is repeatable by others before it is a truly an acceptable scientific proposition.

Ivellious wrote:Darwin and other scientists/naturalists of his era provided evidence and lines of reasoning to show how the Theory of Evolution was developed. In time, the vast majority of scientists that saw these pieces of evidence were convinced that their reasoning was sound. The tests would stretch over the next century or so, and continue today. Darwin and others made predictions about heredity, systems of heredity, the fossil record, natural selection and other forms of selection. To this day, the basic predictions of evolution have not been contradicted by any evidence out there. What you seem to completely lack an understanding of is that a "test" does not need to be a stereotypical "chemist mixing together chemicals in test tubes and seeing what happens."

And yet the evidence is being shot down one by one as we are able to look futher and further into what life is really composed of. You can cetainly go through life believing that nothing has been eliminated from darwinian theory but you are becoming a very small percentage amidst a volume of those who are looking at it with a critical eye and they don't see it that way. As I am showing in my 3D thread, mechanically there is no evolution until there is replication and replication of 3 dimensional form such as that exhibited by living forms has an irreducible minimal complexity that is not logically reachable by chance or forces of nature on their own. To form a 3 dimensional structure you must be able to control substrates in all four dimensions of our reality. You are welcome to come challenge that position if you feel your argument has logical value against it.

KBCid wrote:

How is this possible? Maybe the scientific thought was not based on 'scientific' evidence backed by empirically repeatable testing....

Ivellious wrote:Or, in reality, it could be that the cosmological principle was based on a set of knowledge when it was proposed, and until now there had been no discoveries that disproved it. You sound like science improving on itself is a bad thing...I mean, if when this theory was proposed and studied it fit our current knowledge and understanding, then why should they have rejected it? You seem to be taking your ability to see current evidence as being reason to mock scientists that never had this information before.

Or in a more real reality scientists made a proposition beyond any evidence they actually had in hand. Science isn't science if the proposition is untestable. Cosmology is one of the most unscientific studies in existence because frankly they don't have any way to test the majority of their assumptions. Cosmology is only trumped in being unscientific method by astrology.

Reminds me of the evolutionary belief that all life comes from a single ancestor...

Ivellious wrote:In a matter of speaking, most scientific theories are essentially the same on that level. They are based on evidence available to scientists and can be altered or usurped as time goes on if sufficient evidence is brought forward against it.

So what evidence was available for any scientist to assert the cosmological principle?

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the Universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the Universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

See the principle is based on the assumption or strong philosophical position that our one and only unique view is representative of what anyone would be able to see no matter where in the universe they were. This could conceivably have had some traction if in fact there had been multiple observational evidences from multiple universe locations far enough apart to justify such a notion but, as we know this was not the case. The truth is that there was no, and I mean absolutely no evidence that the view from multiple universe locations would be the same. So what we have here is a principle that was asserted which had no empirical evidence to begin with and a bunch of other fools bought into it even though there was zero evidence to convince them of its truth.

Ivellious wrote:In biology, you would have to disprove natural selection or find fossils that are completely out of their evolutionary time (rabbit fossils among the dinosaurs) to even start to tear down evolution as a whole. Thus far, no significant evidence against evolution has come to light and no alternative has any significant evidence to challenge evolutionary theory.

In any scientific endeavor one must first provide evidence for an assumption that is repeatable by others before it is a truly an acceptable scientific proposition. Thus, I do not have to disprove NS until you can show empirical evidence that it can perform as it is "believed" to perform.

If you wish to see fossils that are completely out of their time then look at the beginning of the cambrian or even the beginning of the edicarian and see fossils that have no precursors. Such fossils should not arise without precursors that can be directly tied to them. They simply appear in the record with no prior progression being shown. All you or any other scientist can observe is that complex fully formed life suddenly appears in the fossil record. You and they can imagine there was a progression of precursors prior to them as much as it pleases you but it is after all just an imagination game which ultimately is not scientific. So the fact is that I don't have to place a rabbit in the cambrian since the cambrian fossils are already being observed with no precursor to begin with. Thus, all the fully formed life that suddenly showed up is the proverbial rabbit in the cambrian.

You are right on target. The bottom line here is that we have a trio of people who burst upon the scene with the same agenda: disprove the existence of God: Marx, Freud, and Darwin. All three were atheists. All three had reasons for disproving the existence of God and all three worked together (either consciously or unconsciously) to further their agenda.

I was taken to task on another forum because I was told that I did not know or understand the "true" scientific meaning of "theory". I was ridiculed and called names and received no help from the mods or the creator of the forum. I don't go there much anymore. I am so glad to have found this forum. God bless you!

ClassicalTeacher wrote: You are right on target. The bottom line here is that we have a trio of people who burst upon the scene with the same agenda: disprove the existence of God: Marx, Freud, and Darwin. All three were atheists. All three had reasons for disproving the existence of God and all three worked together (either consciously or unconsciously) to further their agenda.

I was taken to task on another forum because I was told that I did not know or understand the "true" scientific meaning of "theory". I was ridiculed and called names and received no help from the mods or the creator of the forum. I don't go there much anymore. I am so glad to have found this forum. God bless you!

I am glad you approve. When I found this site I was looking for a place that would host my topic of 3D spatiotemporal control and they have been kind enough to give me space to keep a thread going on it. If you have some interest on another point of evidence against the evolutionary paradigm I recommend you have a look at it. The thread is founded on physics and applied physics so it is very mechanically oriented.

If they think that is large, they should see my mother-in-law.

PaulSacramento wrote:If they think that is large, they should see my mother-in-law.

Paul, you did not go there. I will be praying your wife does not become a member here and see this post.

PaulSacramento wrote:If they think that is large, they should see my mother-in-law.

I gotta remember that one for when I get married lol

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If they think that is large, they should see my mother-in-law.

I gotta remember that one for when I get married lol

Bip if you remember this one you'll never get married.

Byblos wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If they think that is large, they should see my mother-in-law.

I gotta remember that one for when I get married lol

Bip if you remember this one you'll never get married.

Good point Byblos lol