On "Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?

John MacNeil:

If you wish to debate the facts of the SCM, you are welcome to start another thread for the purpose.

This thread is for discussion of "design"-related issues, and the lack of scientific evidence of such.

Please stay on-topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mr. G.,

"Shall no one, can no one, speak in defence of Intelligent Design?"

When you issued that clarion call, were you interested in a real discussion? Or were you merely seeking to ambush some young person so that you could show off your mental acuity?

"I think you and I should speak to testable predictions of Alien Design."

Was that statement of yours sincere? Or was it just another of your immature ambushes where you hoped you could display your self-perceived superior intellect?

When you engage in this discussion you seem to be under the false belief that your "Ultimate Creation Theory" is sacrosanct and unassailable. But that is not the case at all. Part of my hypothesis is that your creation theory is nothing but propaganda. If I am to discuss my hypothesis then I must start at the beginning, but everytime I make a post to do so, you cry foul like some spoiled child.

The people in science who's work I refer to are people of the highest intelligence. Their accomplishments in science have been recognized in the form of numerous awards granted by their peers.

Hannes Alfven--Nobel Prize winning physicist.

Albert Einstein--Nobel Prize winning physicist.

Halton Aarp--Astronomer, multiple award recipient.

Sir Fred Hoyle--Astrophysicist, multiple award recipient.

Geoffrey Burbidge--Astronomer, multiple award recipient.

All of these people, and many more, believe that the "Ultimate Creation Theory" is a hoax.

The people that you regard as the "eminent" people in science are a catholic priest who was appointed to a position in the university for the express purpose of initiating the "creation of the universe from a sub-atomic atom theory", and a devout Cristian and affected socialite who used the observations of V. M. Slipher to falsely corroborate the "creation event".

You seem to think that the purpose of this forum is solely for you to exhibit your childish debating style and that you never have to engage in any real discussion. How do you ever expect to learn anything if you don't interact with those who have more knowledge?

You keep saying how you are an atheist. Is that just a false front? You seem to adhere quite strictly to the creationist line and I'm beginning to think that you have some close affiliation with some organization that doesn't tolerate dissention. Anyone who is really interested in science would be eager to discuss science, but you shy away from discussion at every opportunity. Maybe you should have located your thread in the child pshycology section instead of a science section.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

John MacNeil:

I'm sorry you have 'issues'.

Still, please stay on-topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For a woman to be using a phony name and a phony picture and pretending to be a man in a science forum, the person "Mr.G." is a strange one to be observing that someone else has "issues". If she was half as clever as she thought she was, she would have befriended a male FBI profiler before beginning the perpetration of her fraud. If she did, she would have found out that men and women categorize their data differently according to their biological and psychological requirements and she might then have used that knowledge to construct a convincing "beard".

As the woman "Mr.G." seems to have no intention of entering into a legitimate discussion, and whose only purpose for starting this thread seems to have been for the expressed design of ambushing anyone she could, I think it is only prudent if her non-debating posts, which will become increasingly shrill and perhaps even vulgar, are not regarded as attempts to steer this thread back "on topic", the main focus of which she has been avoiding assiduously.

I have noticed throughout my time on the web that there are some people who adopt a strange persona with their web-name and they use the web-name until they have been found out and then they discard it and adopt another. It is the one reason that I don't like "stage names" on the web, although I understand how it is necessary for some people to adopt such a name in order to preserve their privacy.

The woman "Mr.G." obviously didn't know where this thread could lead, as no one really knows where their threads will lead, but it is apparent that the idea of Intelligent Design is worthy of discussion on a couple of fronts. Not as a metaphysical, supra-natural construction, but as the intelligent organization of systems for a purpose and as additional evidence that the universe is a complimentary system and not the result of the creation theory or the "Ultimate Creation Theory".

When I entered this discussion I did so in good faith. I have no desire to defame anyone, nor do I have any ulterior motives. I simply wish to discuss the subject in a logical, respectful manner. As "Mr.G." and "James.R" seem incapable of restraining their religiosity and their vindictiveness, perhaps some of you more sincere people would like to enter the discussion at this point?

 

John MacNeil:

LMAOBT. Another weird theory you've thrown into the mix, and it's wrong, too. And from reading some of your other posts elsewhere, I'm surprised you didn't accuse me of being Jewish and evil. But then you would owe both women and Jews everywhere an apology for thinking that being either makes someone less of a person than a real hunk of male pulchritude, such as yourself.

I think it quite obvious you will never change your mind regarding your pet theories, conspiracies, and errant interpretations of Science. I never imagined you would. And 'discussion' for the sake of endless argument is not the primary purpose of this thread.

This thread, like most others, has participants and spectators. Spectators are what debates are all about. Spectators watch debaters argue points and merits of rationale, and they make up their own minds accordingly. So, while you spend your posts arguing that the great majority of scientists are stupid and clueless, that the catholic church is out to take over the world while hiding the aliens from us, and I must be female because you think I'm perpetrating fraud, spectators are judging the soundness of your other conclusions based on their estimations of your displays of reasoning power.

If that kind of ambush makes you unfairly uncomfortable, there's probably good reason -- having nothing to do with your fellow (or otherwise) participants.

 

Okay, I gotta jump in here.

So there's a difference between bringing us here and making us? Yes, I could see how the latter is so much harder to believe (or prove.) And different species? I heard there is only one species of human.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. So there's gaps in the evolutionary record. This has been addressed here before. What interpretation of data from several billion years ago has anything to do with Evolutionary Theory? Most data is recent, speaking on the scale of the earth's age. The data that gets interpreted that links all life on earth is the very large forest of biochemical science that shows how similar in chemical makeup all life is. All life uses DNA, very similar DNA, and the similarity between our DNA and other higher order mammals is within 99% of one another. All higher order mammals use the same types of chemical processes to eat, sleep, mate, make proteins, break down sugars, etc... On a macro level, the similarity between our brains and skeletons, the structure of tissues and organs and other forms of life is overwhelmingly convincing that we humans are animals with the same origin as all other life on earth. To suggest that we are not will require more than a couple of brave rebels with riveting, non-peer reviewed books to prove. Evidence stands apart from the voice that first explains it. This evidence must stand alone (be acceptable by the scientific community at large) to be credible. I'm wasting my breath here, though, aren't I?

So in response to your next statement,

You can say whatever you want, but the evidence does support it and you have to quote more than a couple of contrary voices to argue strongly against it. Other possbilities were entertained, I would imagine, by people who make a living doing this, but those ideas had a shorter half-life.

I refer you to the earlier post by James R., who challenged your claims against Big Bang Theory (or Ultimate Creationist Theory, in your wording) point for point. And which, instead of rebutting against point by point, you chose the far more eloquent:

Not sure what evidence you had to suspect he was with the State Department (but then you work quite well without evidence), but you later had the selective memory to claim:

To close, addressing the cosmological argument this has become:

Apart from the fact that God isn't mentioned in the definition of the model, the theory that the Universe was smaller than it is now is hard to believe? Is it the fact that it's a few millimeters across that's hard to believe? (Argument from incredulity). You're confusing a physical entity occupying a small volume and then growing larger with something springing from nothing, which is "creation." The Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with creation or Ultimate Creation, is merely a description of physical attributes. I'm not current on this, but I believe the theory does not preclude the Universe being at one time larger and then collapsing (to small volume, not complete annihilation), or does it? James R.?

So, we should start a new thread, one which disusses the merits and strengths of the Big Bang Theory (if one isn't going already). Having done a spot of reading about Hannes Alfven, I am curious about the implications of the model that there was no big bang.

That belongs in another forum, and when we get there, NO VATICAN!

Le Coq

 

And who gives a FF if Mr. G is a man or a goat? (Discussion 101: Don't focus on the person, focus on the ideas. Avoid saying "you," rather say, "your statement that"). I am Le Coq and that's all y'all need to know.

Le Coq
has crowed.

 

And the corollary: Absence of proof is absence of proof.

The aliens have left the building somewhere else.

 

Take the most obvious example first: Black people and White people. If black people were here first, in Africa, how could the white people, who are different in both pigmentation and genetic marking, have transformed from black to white? Then how could all of the other distinct peoples, such as Eskimos, Indians, Chinese and the many hundreds of others, have developed a distinct purebred phylogeny? There is no record of our type of human before the evidence dated 30,000 to 32,000 year ago. That is the scientific community's position. For any connection to neanderthals to be entertained, two "extreme scenarios" had to be postulated. That means that the scientific community does not have even a reaonable belief that the present type of humans were phylogenically related to neanderthals or they would have given a "reasonable scenario". If there is no connection to neanderthals, then Darwinian Theory of Evolution cannot be maintained as a scientific theory because it no longer fulfills the stated requirements of encompassing "all" life on the planet. Therefore natural selection, which we know works, can be applied to individual species but not to all of the species on the planet as a unit because we have seen variations of life that evolution, as we know it, cannot explain.

If the DNA of the varieties of life on this planet are so similar, then it is entirely possible that the DNA for all, or most, life in the galaxy is similar. When we search for life on other planets, or, more accurately, when we search for planets on which there might be life, we search for planets that exhibit the same chemical profile as our own. We expect the basic ingredients throughout the galaxy to be similar if the galaxy evolved from the same source at some earlier point in existence.

All of the universe in the space of one inch? and creation from nothing? You perceive a tangible difference between those two scenario?

When James R. made his post he was attacking, not discussing. The same as Mr.G. was doing. I really don't care what gender, race or nationality anyone is. I figure that everyone on this earth has the same equality of right to life and liberty until proved otherwise. When I use disparaging comments against Israel or the U.S. corporate government, they are not slurs against all the citizens of either country or against any religion in particular. When Palestine was first divided so that the state of Israel could be achieved, there was a specific UN resolution denoting specific borders to separate the Jews from the Arabs. The Israelis were the ones who constantly defied that resolution from the beginning by going into the Arab neighborhoods and villages, slaughtering the Arabs they came across and chasing the others away so that Israelis could take over their land and belongings. They continue to do the same kinds of atrocities today and their ultimate goal is to chase all the Arabs out of the entire territory of Palestine. This policy is backed by the U.S. and is based on the way the U.S. stole their country away from the indigenous population. If you would read some history you would find all of this out for yourselves, then you would realize that it doesn't matter what the Palestinians do to try and stop the violence because the Israelis want it to continue until they control all of Palestine. Because of the Israeli policy of land confiscation and the bloody methods they pursue to obtain that land is why I refer to them as evil.

If Mr.G. would refrain from cross-threading to reinforce attack posts, and stick to discussing, then topics like the last paragraph should rightly be over in the World Events section.

 

Well, other than 1 is not equal to zero, I don't presume that the space of one inch of that primordial sequence is the same as the one inch taken up by my fingertip. I think what it means is that matter and energy had different properties in that stage, and that they took up less space.

Now, to the topic!

No one says that whites came from black people. They and all humans came from a common ancestor, whose fossils have mostly been found in Africa. Recent fossil evidence have found homo progenitors in the Caucasus (National Geographic August) that is challenging the timeline and lineage. The skin pigmentation of homo sapiens may have been phenotypically darker, but the northern migrants eventually selected for lighter pigmentation, which has something to do with better utilization of sunlight for vitamin D production, melatonin regulation, etc., I'm not sure what. This is a reaction to environmental factors, higher latitudes =less sunlight. Solid Darwinian stuff.

Why is Mr. G.'s reference not satisfactory to you?

Could you explain what these two are?

I don't think this is true. The scientific community, which does not support alien intervention, "believes" that the neanderthal and homo sapiens both evolved from the same origin as all life on earth. Because fossil evidence linking the two species in a clear-cut explanation of their postion on the evolutionary tree is not abundant (or existent, I'll have to do more reading- can you provide references otherwise?) does not QED disprove evolution. I wish you would elaborate why you think this is so, and how Darwinian evolution does not work for all species. Your statement:

is grossly unsupported by your previous statements. I invite you to do so, in the interest of civil discussion.
Also, in light of:

I would like to know some of these variations you feel or have references to support that contradict evolution. Make sure you understand what evolution is. Evolution is not a surefire method to pinpoint species origin or ancestry. Evolution simply claims that genetic frequencies in a species varies over time in response to environmental factors. That's it. It is the cornerstone, if not most of the entire foundation, of modern biology and the life sciences. Don't dismiss it so readily. It's fun to read 'alternate' theories and think "now I'm in the know, I'm in the special contrary minority," but that's not what science is about. Whether ten or ten billion believe something's true has no bearing on its actual truth.

In a semi-related note, I just read a biography of an ex-mormon who, as a molecular biologist, could not discount the evidence that shows that American Indians were of Asian origin and not Hebrews, as the Book of Mormon taught. It led to his disillusionment and exit from the Church which has been finding it increasingly difficult to answer the inconsistencies it has taught that have been questioned by historians, scientists, and other intellectuals, most of who come from its own ranks.
http://www.exmormon.org/whylft125.htm
Interesting reading illuminating the psychology about the power of belief.
Le Coq

 

When a scientist makes a statement describing something and uses a definition specifically denoting size, such as 1 inch, the scientist means 1 inch whether it is here on this planet or on the other side of the galaxy. When or where a thing was 1 inch has no bearing on the description. If a scientist described something as 1 inch and meant something larger or smaller than 1 inch, the scientist would have described it as 1 inch + or 1 inch - or 1 inch +or-. When the Ultimate Creation Theory was first proffered by the Belgian catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre, he said all of the universe came from a "sub-atomic atom", meaning a sub-atomic particle, which would be a hadron. When scientists give a description of something they mean it literally, so you can be sure that the description they give as "a few millimeters" or 1 inch is what they mean. If they didn't mean what they said then their description would be pointless. If you interpret what scientists say to be something other than what they mean, then how are you ever going to understand anything?

When I put "extreme scenarios" in quotation marks it was because that is the scientist's stated position and the exact wording that the Smithsonian Institution used to describe them on their website. The same with the description of the evidence of how long they can prove we were actually on this planet. That all came from the Smithsonian Institution's own website. In an earlier post in this thread I gave the Smithsonian's website address and directions on how to find the pertinent information on human evolution as they present it. I'm not going to type up all of the Smithsonian's evidence for you to read here when you can simply go to their website and study the information as they present it. If you had bothered to even read my previous posts from an objective point of view, instead of rushing through them in your haste to get in on the feeding frenzy, you would have noticed that I have been backing up my views with references. If you don't go and read or look at any of the references I give, then how can you expect to discuss the subject in a progressive and intelligent manner?

When you say that people have different phylogeny but come from a single source, you are merely making speculation that falls within the framework of the "extreme scenarios" put forth by the scientific community to try and somehow propose links where no links exist, simply so that they don't have to abandon the evolution theory and replace it with something else. Natural selection of a species is a physical process. Darwinian Theory of Evolution is a theory. In order to discuss science, you must be able to distinguish between a process and a theory.

 

Let us look a little more closely at what scientists say literally:

....the initial singularity['s]....minimum size becomes the planck length of 10^-33 centimeters

The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang...the observable Universe was concentrated into a point.

Ah. Understanding.

In order that one can discuss Science with some authority, one must understand that Science is a process--the systematic collection, organization and analysis of information, and a theory is a tool of that process. Science has proven itself to be our best means of systematic description of natural phenomena as natural processes.

 

I didn't say an inch wasn't an inch. I said the qualities of space taken up by an inch were different at the different times. And according to the theory, they were. The space of an inch at close to the big bang must have contained billions to the billionth power (more or less) of mass. My overarching statement is that it doesn't matter how small the universe was, Big Bang Theory does not hold that the universe did not come from "nothing" and that it was not "created." Your statement seems to be that since it was so small it might as well have been created.

A simple "I got that statement from the Smithsonian website that Mr. G posted a link to" would have sufficed.
I believe you are misinterpreting the use of "extreme" here. It seems to me the word is describing the difference between the (two most popular) theories, not describing the theories as radically unfounded from some absolute or mainstream common sense. Both theories seem plausible, it's just that they diverge from one another at some point, and I would trust that the Smithsonian would describe the theories held out by the majority of experts in the field.
In particular:

Yet you wrote:

Yet the website states, as Mr. G posted:

From your previous post, you seem to be agreeing that the Smithsonian's website is a credible representation of the "scientific community's position." This is the third time this has been pointed out to you now. Why are you not seeing it, or why are you ignoring it? Who's rushing? Look at what you've written:

Yet you gave no references:

Nowhere in that post of 9/5 did you mention a reference or the Smithsonian. I did not previously go and look at the Smithsonian website earlier that Mr.G posted a link to because I did not need convincing that the anatomically modern human species were older than 30.000 years. So I did not know you were quoting the website. Which is why I asked where and what these "extreme" theories were.

Proposing links is what science is all about. That's the "hypothesis" part of the process. Because a link hasn't been proven yet does not mean that it doesn't exist. And yes, it is so that they don't have to abandon the evolutionary theory! There's no reason to replace it with something else because there's no reason to! That's not a conspiracy or stupidity!

More scientifically put, natural selection is an observable phenomenon. A theory describes it. Because something is "only a theory" does not mean it is not true, or not as good as a "law." Science is not interested in making all theories into "laws." Theories support the process of Science, and constantly confirming or disproving the theories is the heart of the process. I don't know where "you must be able to distinguish... if you want to discuss Science" came from, where I proved that I don't understand the difference, but it seemed you were looking for another fillip to barb your post with.

If your reply is, "well, you were pretty snotty yourself," then I can only retort that you started the insults here, John. You constantly ignored refutations to your statements and claimed that it was other people ignoring you. Mr. G has made a couple off-color remarks, yes, as well as some of the other guys, but your language is absolutely saturated with condescension and ad hominem challenges to everyone's intelligence. I know you will probably have to challenge this in your next post, which I will no longer address in any replies, but if you insist on inserting sentences like "then how are you ever going to understand anything?" in every paragraph, then your productive days here are limited. I see you've been here only a few weeks, and yet you've already managed to incense some of the more level-headed senior posters here. There have been plenty of posters that have came through, claiming they've dismantled the theory of relativity or have come up with time travel, and have the evidence to stand the whole world of science on its ear. Eventually they get ignored, not because other posters don't like their opinions, but because these persons turn to insults and consistently fail to understand or acknowledge logical argument.

Here's my pledge: if you post statements that argue positions on science, then I will address those positions in a neutral language, without assuming or trying to establish your ability or intelligence or waist size. Please don't say that that's what you've been trying to do. I (or rather you) showed earlier that you resorted to insults rather than argument.

Now: I will go back and reread all the posts, and try to condense your position, and repost it, so that we can return to the topic at hand. Perhaps we will find it necessary to start a new thread. Perhaps in the interest of this you may want to do this yourself, to reiterate your position, as it was spread out over many posts.

Good day.
Le Coq

 

Umm, all my remarks have been laser-like--aka: accurately coherent.

Except for the few that have escaped informed scrutiny.

 

When I stated that there is no physical evidence of us being here more than 30,000 to 32,000 year ago, that is based on us being the present phylogenic species of human as apart from the next previous examples, which are the Neanderthals and the Skhul V's. Go back to the Smithsonian's website and look at the pictures of the skulls for all three specimen and you will quickly see that the Neanderthal and the Skhul V are anatomically different from us. There is no known evidence to prove linkage between us and those other two, but those other two have similarities that they share with each other. When the Smithsonian says there is evidence for anatomically correct humans from 130,000 and 90,000 year ago, they are referring to the Neanderthal and the Skhul V, respectively. If you had bothered to even read my previous posts, which you say you are going to do now, you would have found out that it was me who referenced the Smithsonian Institution, and not Mr.G. Mr.G. merely took a quote from there which Mr.G. then placed out of context. Furthermore, it was not me who began with any attack posts. I think attack posts are stupid and the sign of someone who allows accelerated emotions to cloud their objective thought.

Your view of the early universe is confusing and it is obvious that astrophysics is not your specialty. Before you let your emotions trample all over your objective thought, let me emphasize that my observation is purely objective and is in no way meant to be an attack. A lot of the theories that are taught in schools today are based on the universe having originated from a condensed ball of matter which exploded outward at criticality and continues to expand outward. It is immaterial if the Ultimate Creation Theory says that the universe began from a single point, an inch, or even a million mile wide condensed mass. The result would be the same description. If all mass were expanding outward, then the universe, by that very description, would be non-isotropic and yet the science concludes that the universe is isotropic. Matter in the universe is found to be evenly distrbuted. That could not be the case if the universe is expanding. There are perfect mathematical properties that are inherent in the entire universe. That also could not be possible in an expanding universe. The science does not support an expanding universe, only some people support that theory.

There is a point beyond which a physical object cannot be compressed. This is because all elemental particles have a field boundary. For matter to be compressed in the manner you seem to think possible, it would have to be squeezed out of existence, which is impossible. The shape and appearence of matter can be changed but matter cannot be destroyed. Whatever shape it is changed into, it will still require space to fit into. Calling something a singularity, the result of condensing matter infinitely, is another example of reinforcing a faulty theory. It belies relativity and is based on daydreaming, not science. If the Ultimate Creation Theory and it's complimentary theory, the black hole theory, are true, then Einstein's theories aren't true. You can't have it both way. Now, since Einstein's theories have been proven to be true, and the Ultimate Creation Theory and the black hole theories are only based on conjecture and the faulty interpretation of redshift, it is obvious which theories are going to stand the test of time and which are going to end up in the rubbish bin of scientific theories. Albert Einstein said right up to the end of his life that there was such a thing as a Unified Field Theory and the scientific evidence we've gathered since his death is more supportive of his theory than of the creationist view, whether you call that the Big Bang or, as I call it, the Ultimate Creation Theory.

 

Then the universe is expanding. During the attempts at mapping the universe it was found that matter is not evenly distrubuted. Rather that it clumps together and forms seeming walls simular to a soap bubble film. Do some research for an image of the stick man which will show this clumping. There are several posts involving this in the astromony section of these forums...

Please satisfactorly explain red shift, an observed phenomena...

 

Redshift was first observed by astronomer V.M.Slipher. A couple of year later Edwin Hubble determined that the redshift, indicating a body in motion becoming increasingly distant from us, was basis for the theory that all matter in the universe was expanding outward from a central position, corroborating the proposed theory of Georges Lemaitre that the universe began with the outward explosion of a sub-atomic atom.

Astronomer Halton Arp showed that redshift was not an indicator of expansion, but was an indicator of a body in motion and an indicator of density. The body exhibiting red spectrum light could be in an orbital path that temporarily makes it look like it is continuously moving outward. Arp has also shown that Quasar's extremely high redshift is an intrinsic property of Quasars. He has shown that some normal galaxies have companion galaxies with extremely high redshift and so the redshift must be of a nonvelocity origin. If this is so then redshift can be the product of density or relative motion.

In Arp's book, 'Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies', c.1987, he supplies photographic evidence for his case. The photographic plates are from his work at the Palomar Observatory.

From my understanding, matter in the universe is homogenous and isotropic. It used to be thought that there were empty places in space but when the Hubble Space Telescope was focused for a long exposure on those seemingly empty spaces for a deep field view, the resultant photographic evidence showed an astonishing multitude of galaxies. I referenced that deep field view from APOD in one of my earlier posts.

 

Arp is suggesting that statistically there are more quasars near peculiar galaxies (Arp's proposed source of their origin) than quasars near non-quasar, non-peculiar galaxies. Arp further suggests that therefore quasars are nearer to us, we the observers, than redshift leads us to believe--that is, at distances more similar to the galaxies of our own cosmological epoch--because, he says, that redshift interpretation must be affected by pecular physical properties of quasars but not by the physical properties of non-quasar galaxies.

Number of observable galaxies: 100 Billion to 1 Trillion, current estimate.
Number of known quasars: 12,000 approx.
Number of peculiar galaxies in Arp's catalog: 338
Number of square degrees covering the surface of the celestial sphere: 41,253

100 Billion galaxies / 41,253 degress^2 = 2,424,100 galaxies per square degree of sky.
12,000 quasars / 41,253 degress^2 = .29 quasars per square degree of sky
338 peculiar Arp galaxies / 41,253 degress^2 = 0.0082 Arp galaxies per square degree of sky.

Ratio of galaxies to quasars = 8,358,965:1
Ratio of galaxies to Arp galaxies = 24,730:1
Ratio of quasars to Arp galaxies = 35:1

Statistically:

It is at least 8 million times more likely that galaxies and quasars belong to different cosmological epochs (apparently due to evolution), thus they exhibit different redshift value ranges.
It is 24,730 times more likely that Arp galaxies belong to the epoch of galaxies than to the epoch of quasars.

It is 8 million times more likely that, looking in any given direction in the sky, you will see a galaxy instead of a quasar.
It is 35 times more likely that, looking in any given direction in the sky, you will see a quasar instead of an Arp galaxy.

For any Arp galaxy, anywhere from 0 to 12,000 quasars could be associated with it. Why would an Arp galaxy not make a quasar? Why would just one Arp galaxy of this epoch make 12,000 quasars?

Then again, if quasars emit more energy than can be accounted for by modern science, where did the average Arp galaxy get the energy to make 35 quasars and still remain intact? How about just one? If an Arp galaxy has the energy to make a quasar, why doesn't it look like an even bigger quasar? If Quasars make Arp galaxies, why are there so few Arp galaxies?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

The nearest large galaxies to ours are M31 and M81. Both of those large galaxy show light to be blueshifted. Around each of those large galaxy are companion galaxies that the astronomical community always agreed were associated with the larger galaxies. When Arp analyzed those companion galaxies around M31 and M81, in 1976, he found that 12 of 12 certainly identifiable galaxies displayed significant high redshift. That proved that redshift is not an indicator of recession velocity. Arp had been doing such studies since 1970.

Other astronomers undertook to verify Arp's results, which is standard scientific practice in astronomy. Lucette Bottinelli and Lucienne Gougenheim of France, in 1973. Suzy Collin-Souffrin and Jean-Claude Pecker of France, and H.M.Tovamssian of Armenia, in 1974. Others were, Giraud, Moles and Vigier, in 1982. Sulentic, in 1982. Those studies and a dozen more were undertaken between 1970 and 1985 and all showed the same result, that redshift is not an indicator of recession velocity.

When it is considered that the Ultimate Creation Theory was begun by a catholic priest and substantiated by Hubble, using a faulty interpretation of someone else's observations, it is incumbent upon us to look more objectively at that theory. Einstein stated all through his adult life and right up until he died that the universe must be explained by a Unified Field Theory. All the evidence accumulated since his death points irrevocably to such a theory being the correct direction in which to focus our attention. Einstein believed that galaxies, being larger examples of solar systems, are themselves parts of a larger system. This has been proven by the galaxy clusters, a picture of one such example I referenced to APOD in an earlier post. Einstein believed that the galaxy clusters were themselves part of a larger system, a picture of which I referenced to APOD in that same earlier post. Einstein believed that all the galaxies everywhere are interacting parts of a huge system, the borders of which we are yet to discover. Einstein did not believe in Chaos theory as being the origin of the Universe. That is why he worked for the rest of his life on the Unified Field Theory.

Other people, who obviously didn't understand relativity, tried to say that Einstein's new theories corroborated their Ultimate Creation Theory. Einstein was always against that interpretation and said so. Some people back then, who were only interested in advancing their own theory for their own ulterior motives, said that Einstein wore out his genius and that he wasn't a viable thinker any more. Of course, that is not how genius, or any other intelligence, works. You get wiser with age, not dumber. If Einstein had the Hubble telescope photographs to observe when he was doing his theorizing, it is possible that he might have been able to complete his Unified Field Theory.