Here is an organization representing a growing number of dissident physicists:

Natural Philosophy Alliance.

The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. Such reforms have long been urgently needed; and yet there is no area of scholarship more stubbornly censorial, and more reluctant to reform itself.

Reigning paradigms in physics and cosmology have for many decades been protected from open challenge by extreme intolerance, excluding debate about the most crucial problems from major journals and meetings. But the founding of the NPA in 1994 provided those struggling against this irrationality and intolerance with the strength, visibility, and credibility that comes from numbers and from collaborative, purposeful effort. It has also enabled them to share, expand, and refine their individual knowledge through contact with many other critical scholars, at NPA general meetings–held at least once per year since 1994–and by phone and mail, both postal and electronic.

We call the NPA an “alliance” because our members hold a wide variety of different views, yet have joined forces in a common effort. We agree unanimously on little more than that something is drastically wrong in contemporary physics and cosmology, and that a new spirit of open-mindedness is desperately needed in order to correct this situation
…..
Our foremost watchword is tolerance . Physics has sunk into its current mess largely because of lack of it, while some other sciences, such as the earth sciences, have made remarkable progress since 1950 by practicing it. Beyond science, we also strongly oppose political, religious, racial, and ethnic bias: for example, our criticisms of special and general relativity do not involve any kind of criticism of Einstein as a person, or of his political and ethical views–or even, in most cases, of his other valuable scientific work.

Several NPA members believe that the main benefit of criticizing and replacing special relativity may be–beyond even the likely development of new energy sources this will facilitate–the undermining of the relativism and subjectivism that have increasingly infused many areas of thought over the past century, since the iconoclastic amorality of Nietzsche. It will then become more difficult to support ethical relativism, and to argue that truth and values are not objective, absolute, eternal, and/or rationally based.

To learn more about the Natural Philosophy Alliance–its meetings and publications, how to join, etc.–look further into this web site.

Glenn Morton is quietly one of the most despised Darwinists. Several years ago, Morton left the Institute of Creation Research to become a Darwinazi, thus earning the distinction of being the Benedict Arnold of creationism.

Morton became famous in 1986 for challenging the creationists to explain certain stratified layers. Now, alomost 22 years later, Dr. Steven Austin showed how the process of mud flocculation destroyed Morton’s objections to a flood-based geology. The next 15 years will be a revolution in our understanding of how strata are formed. It will eventually become evident that stratified layers are the result of fast moving muddy waters over a short period of time versus slow sedimentation over millions of years.

The prestigious journal Science affirmed that recent experiments with fast moving water and sidements show that the old earth interpretations of stratification were probably wrong. Comments about the paper published in Science along with Austin’s August 4th talk will be out when a CD in a few weeks. It was gratifying to see Glenn Morton’s ideas finally trashed after 22 years.

Finally, Dr. Austin got recruited by Royal Oil, a NASDAQ listed company, for his out-of-the-box thinking. Creationists might one day become the best paid geologists because they have the most accurate models of where things are on the Earth….

The Darwinists better watch out. Darwinism isa barrier to technological progress and an obstacle to the acquisition of wealth. Being on the bad side of American free enterprise is a bad place to be if one is an american.

I finally met my Uncommon Descent colleague, JohnnyB! JohnnyB gave the play-by-play here:Bartlett Publishing….

Also at this morning’s session I attended talks on Lucas Force Law YEC physics with Dr. Jason Rosenhouse at pandasthumb. This was lively as physicists Dr. John Hartnett and astro physicist Dr. Danny Faulkner were in a shouting match with Dr. Boudreux and Dr. Lucas and friends over the proposed classical model of atomic structure…..

For more details see: CommonSenseScience.org.

Later in the day physicist Dr. Humphreys gave a presentation related to plasma cosmology and the fact that young and “old” galaxies have identical levels of maganatism inconsistent with an Old Universe. He cited a recent letter published this year in the prestigious scientific journal nature. Humphreys appeared to be right on!!

PS

It turns out there will be another “Expelled” movie about the suppression of dissent from Einsteinian relativity and standard quantum mechanics (just kidding). Dr. Lucas made a very powerful case about the kludgey nature of Quantum theory and offered a more elegant model based on almost standard electro-dynamics combined with a ring model (versus point model) of the electron…

Visit: EinsteinWrong.com

Einstein Wrong - The Miracle Year documents the quest of a mother and her son as they enter the underworld of physics to take on relativity and the icon of 20th century physics.

Follow the journey of “Mrs. de” as she goes into the classroom, out into the streets, attends underworld physics conferences, and finally takes things into her own hands to discover the truth about relativity and the “miracle year” of Einstein. See her enter the dark side of physics where the legend of Einstein is not the solution, but part of the problem.

Don’t miss the suburban housewife who takes on the man whose name is synonymous with “genius”. And when all appears to be lost, can a physicist who lives just around the corner save her and the world from the depths of a physics world in turmoil?

Just when you thought it was safe for physicists to walk the streets, along comes “Mrs. de” to shake things up.

And while they shake up the physics world 100 years after Einstein, the family discovers their own year where real miracles happen.

I met and got re-introduced to the following people at the first night of ICC 2008:

Dr. Georgia Purdom (molecular biology)
Dr. Jason Lisle (physics)
Dr. Steve Gollmer (physics)
Dr. John Harnett (physics)
Dr. John Morris (geology)

I mentioned earlier that Dr. John Harnett of University of South Wales had some of his YEC papers published in secular peer review. His basis for YEC cosmology is rooted in Carmellian Relativity. His new book is Starlight, Time, and the New Physics.

The book tables had many ID books and DvDs and this is a good thing since many ID proponents are not YECs! But 90% of the books and DvDs focused on the age of the Earth and Noah’s flood. Probably 300 to 400 titles! Unreal. This is a new world of science I was not previously exposed to (more about that later, especially from the oil seeking geologists)….

The organizations represented:

Creation Science Fellowship of Pittsburg
Institute of Creation Research
Answers in Genesis
Creation Ministries International
Creation Research Society

probably 12 other organizations. The conference room of 500 was packed for Dr. Russell Humphrey’s (physics) opening talk. Humphreys presented the following:

Evidence for a Young World

Curiously, Humphrey’s used the phrase “young cosmos” in his talk.

As a pre cursor to ICC 2008, I had the honor of being invited to a private dinner with film maker Joe Bardwell and Henry Morris, III the CEO of ICR. Henry Morris III is the son of the famous Henry Morris who is the father of modern creationism. Also at the dinner were two physicists who were graduates of University of Pennsylvania…..

Henry III spoke glowingly of ID and the literature that it contributed to the origins debate…..

I also had the honor of a personal meeting with Walter ReMine in St. Paul, MN last week. ReMine will be joining the IDCS Network and his work will be featured at the IDCS Network. ReMine will likely make an appearance at ICC2008.

I’ll be at International Creation Conference and Creation Biology/Geology Conference 2008 next week August 3-8, 2008 in Pittsburgh.

The International Creation Conference evening sessions are free and open to the public. I and Uncommon Descent author, JohnnyB will be there.

See: Frontiers in Creation for the meeting being held Thursday and Friday, August 7-8, 2008. See 2008 International Conference for the meeting being held Sunday-Wednesday, August 3-6, 2008.

Scientist re-examined rocks from the Apollo missions of about 35 years ago. They presumed the Moon had no water, they presumed worng.

Walter Brown speculated that Noah’s flood created explosive water and steam that accelerated ice into the moon. This would cause water to melt rock on impact! Furthermore, we would expect water to boil off on the moon, but we have a peculiar circumstance of water being trapped inside rock!

Well, well, what do we see:

Watery Moon Upsets Conventional Wisdom

These results raise many questions. Are the volatile contents of the melts that formed the green and orange glasses typical for the Moon? Can the general scarcity of most volatile elements on the Moon be reconciled with the apparent abundance of sulphur, chlorine, fluorine and especially water in the lunar glasses? What happened to all the water during the Moon’s formation? And if the Moon is not bone dry, where did the water come from?

Mark Chaussidon, “Planetary science: The early Moon was rich in water,” Nature 454, 170-172 (10 July 2008)

Here is somehting I wrote in the late spring, 2008: Gambler’s Ruin is Darwn’s Ruin. I related how the mathematics of risk management exposed the flaws in Darwin’s reasoning.

The math of risk management demonstrated the falsehood of Darwin’s claim:

Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.

C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species — Ch#4 Natural Selection

The the math of Gambler’s Ruin will be Darwin’s Ruin. The math of Gambler’s Ruin was integral to the pioneering work of risk managers lik Dr. Edward Thorp of MIT.

The US Stock Market to this day honors the God of the Creationists by closing for business on Good Friday. I delight to report on developments in the US Stock Market and all things mathematical. God created a universe friendly to math, and math is the enemy of Darwinism.

Here is more about Throp and one of his “students” Bill Gross.

Old Pros Size Up the Game

Old Pros Size Up the Game
Thorp and Pimco’s Gross Open Up on Dangers
Of Over-Betting, How to Play the Bond Market
By SCOTT PATTERSON
March 22, 2008

About 50 years ago, a young math instructor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Edward Thorp, created a strategy for wagering on blackjack that maximized winnings and effectively eliminated the chance of getting wiped out.
(more…)

Mike Gene, a celebrity in the ID movement retires. See: Farwell by Mike Gene.

God bless you and your family, Mike Gene.

From Kevin Blackwook FAQ

Q:Several times your novel touched on the subject of creation. Do you personally believe in that?

A: Yes. There are many things about God and the Bible I still don’t quite comprehend, but I do believe firmly in an intelligent design behind the universe. I recommend Michael Behe’s excellent book, DARWIN’S BLACK BOX, for more information on the irreducible complexity of the universe.

Q: Is your conclusion that religion and gambling just don’t mix?

A: Not at all. I just hope readers are moved to reflect on the roads they have traveled in life and consider whether they made the wisest choices and what their legacy might be. Randy Alcorn’s novel, DEADLINE, really forced me to take a long, hard look inward and see how little I’ve accomplished of lasting value. I personally have many regrets over the numerous mistakes I’ve made in my journey and hope to use my remaining time on this planet trying to make a difference with my life.

Q: Were you originally planning on being a Biblical archaeologist?
(more…)

Dr. Olivia Judson (pictured above) writes here in :
An Original Confession

It always happens the same way. A glance around the room to make sure no one else is listening. A clearing of the throat. A lowering of the voice to a conspiratorial tone. Then, the confession.

“I’ve never read ‘On the Origin of Species.’ I tried, but I thought it was boring.”
Thus, a number of eminent scientists — biologists all — have spoken. Or rather, whispered.

Mathematician Co-Authored Guide to Winning at Blackjack

By Yvonne Shinhoster Lamb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 6, 2008; Page C06

Wilbert Eddie Cantey, a hardworking Army sergeant and mathematician at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland’s Harford County in the 1950s, was never one to shy away from a mathematical challenge. So when a private in his analytical office posed a number-crunching conundrum, he took it on. As did two other enlisted men.

Although he was not much of a gambler, Cantey joined with Roger Baldwin, the idea’s originator, James McDermott and Herbert Maisel in their quest to figure out the best way to play blackjack — and win — in Las Vegas casinos. They spent thousands of hours during nights and weekends over a year and a half pounding numbers into desk calculators and using probability law in their search for a statistically sound, card-playing strategy.
(more…)

Darwinists like Ed Brayton are big fans and supporters of the homosexual lifestyle and the entrusting of orphans to gay couples. But queer behavior oftens seem just plain icky, icky with a capital “I”.
(more…)

I have an appetite for fringe ideas: Hadronic Mathematics Volume II. Yummy! Will Santilli’s work overturn accepted Einsteinian relativity, and thus pave the way for the physics of a Young Cosmos? We’ll see….

Volume II:
Isodual Theory of Antimatter
Antigravity and Spacetime Machines

I do not know the answer to this, but he seems awfully smart.

He also seems to have found a cult following. See this paper for a sample of his ideas:Hadronic Mathematics.

I sense his work could break wide-open the case for a YoungCosmos. That’s just an intuitive guess…

Distinguished Professor of Physics in Scientific American:
Scientists are looking for infractions of Einstein’s once sacrosanct theory of relativity.

If Einstein was wrong it won’t be by much, but I suppose Albert himself would welcome the re-examination of his ideas…..but his legacy will remain even if we find a few violations of his theory, and there won’t be many, if they exist at all….

In contrast, Darwin was wrong from day one. Practically all nature is a violation of Darwin’s midless, idiotic theory….

I found an interesting tirade by Santilli here regarding high enery particle travelling faster than light in the same medium. He cites Cerenkov radiation where photons travel at .75c but matter travels almost at c. Pondering of this suggests that this is actually a violation of special relativity. Cerenkov won the nobel prize for his discovery, but it is debated whether his discoveries overturn relativity. I don’t know, but in any case, here is Santilli’s tirade: Limitations of Special and General Relativity. See equations: equation 1.2.11 in the article.

It is well known that electrons can propagate in water at speeds bigger than the
local speed of light, and actually approaching the speed of light in vacuum. In
fact, the propagation of electrons faster than the local speed of light is responsible
for the blueish light, called Cerenkov light, that can be seen in the pools of nuclear
reactors.

It is well known that special relativity was built to describe the propagation of
light IN VACUUM, and certainly not within physical media. In fact, the setting
of a massive particle traveling faster than the local speed of light is in violation
of the basic axioms of special relativity.

To salvage the principle of causality it is then often assumed that the speed of
light “in vacuum” is the maximal causal speed “within water”. However, in this
case there is the violation of the axiom of relativistic addition of speeds, because
the sum of two speeds of light in water does not yield the speed of light, as required
by a fundamental axiom of special relativity
….
but there is the violation of the principle of causality evidently due to the fact that
ordinary massive particles such as the electron (and not hypothetical tachyons)
can travel faster than the local causal speed.

Man, there are some creepy dudes out there. I’m deciding I’m going to bail for a few days.

My most recent stalker appeared at Telic Thoughts. I think he’s a mentally deranged obsessive sort that needs counseling.

See: Speak Your Mind

The type of discussion this stalker is engaged in is baiting and trolling. The main reason I think he is not being banned is that he serves as a useful case study regarding the behavior of internet stalkers. Alan Fox and company are coming to the defense of the stalker. No surprise there.

There have been lingering doubts about Einstein’s theories. Witness the peer-reviewed journal devoted to criticizing Einsteinian and Maxwellian ideas: Galilean Electrodynamics.

Introduction

It is difficult to find critical work about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in most standard physics journals. Galilean Electrodynamics, founded by the late Petr Beckman in 1989, is a notable exception. Since Einstein’s 1905 paper, Relativity has had many critics and although it is widely accepted today, there is still a minority who question the central tenets of Relativity Theory. Galilean Electrodynamics is devoted to publishing high quality scientific papers, refereed by professional scientists, that are critical of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Big Bang theory and other establishment doctrines.

I had the privilege of meeting Robert Fritzius in person. See: “Death Star” Physics Conference, Easter Sunday 2008. Robert Fritzius introduced me to the work of Walter Ritz and gave me a copy of a back-handed critique of Einstein’s and Maxwell’s work by JG Fox (listed below).

[photo of Walter Ritz]

Einstein’s theory was deeply rooted in the work of a creationist by the name of James Clerk Maxwell. If Einstein and Maxwell
(more…)

Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets.

Skatje Myers (daughter of Darwinist PZ Myers)

I’m refraining commenting on the morality of human-animal sex in this post, but human animal sex just sounds plain icky, ICKY with a capital “I”. Imagine you are the proud parent of a young lady, and then she introduces you to her prospective fiance, the “man” she wants as her husband:

HT: FtK

[note: this blog is reconstruction of a post from Fall 2007 that was deleted by FtK. Since this topic has been widely referenced on the net, I’m reconstructing it for historical reference.]

God didn’t use gravity to form the planets and galaxeis, he used electricity and Birkeland currents! See:

Plasma Cosmology Part I

Plasma Cosmology Part II

Plasma Cosmology Part III

Plasma Cosmology Part IV

There have been elements in Christendom (outside of myself and my associates) involved in developing a movie about Noah’s flood.

See: Flood Film Project

Q: Do you believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution or that God created man in his image?

GIBSON: The latter.

Q: So you can’t accept that we descended from monkeys and apes?

GIBSON: No, I think it’s bull—-. I’ve got one of Darwin’s books at home and some of that stuff is pretty d— funny.

PS

EvilBoneHead offers his thoughts about a previous post on Noah’s flood: here. Ah, the hypocrisy of EvilBoneHead. He no doubt delves into fiction, yet he can’t seem to appreciate that even if Noah’s flood were untrue, it would still be a great work of art if done right.

Richard Candaleria uses great principles of physics to take on 17 Nazi Darwinists. Notice what Candalaria was praying for, and what the dear Lord gave him….

Tribute to a great freedom fighter versus 15 Nazi Darwinists in ME-109s:

Tribute to a great freedom fighter versus 2 Nazi Darwinists in ME-262s (incomplete):

Here is a book on it’s way to release which was puked out by Michael Dowd:

Thank God for Evolution

It appears Barbara Forrest will be cast in a new version of the Wizard of Oz as This Character.

I mentioned last year in the thread $180 million anti-God movie bombs at box office:

My idea of great movie? Hmm, one that features the great flood with all the drama and powerful explosions of Walter Brown’s hydroplate theory. I’ve been suggesting to playwrights, novelists, and and screen writers that a good drama with romance and adventure in the backdrop of the great flood would be totally awesome.

To which a god-hating Darwinist by the name of Evil Bender responded:

A passionate romance takes place while God mercilessly drowns the world.
…
My favorite part, though, is that Sal thinks it will inspire people to “uncover the mysteries of the great flood.” Sadly for Sal, “Magic Man Done It” is still not a scientific hypothesis. And pop culture nonsense is still not a way to do science, or else we’d be using Dinosaurs as household appliances.

Not so fast EvilBender, you godless Darwinazi. By the grace of God, I had a “chance” encounter with a movie producer who is laying the groundwork for just such a movie. It appears God placed the idea on the hearts of several of his people.

“In Jesus Name Productions” (IJNP) just made its debut at the 2008 Cannes film festival. I’ll be working on the Noah’s flood film project with them….

For more about the Cannes debut of IJNP see: Social Butterfly

I believe the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Laminin molecule are mostly coincidental, not necessarily an evidence of ID — but this was a hightly fortuitous conicidence….

Pardonnez-moi, mes amis, but perhaps a little off topic heresy in regard to Genesis will spice things up.  Not that I come with the last word on the subject—rather it’s that I think the interpretation of Genesis is not as cut and dried as commonly thought.  It is or at least should be controversial. So how about a spirited but friendly discussion away from the gaze of those experts who have it pretty much all figured out?

I’ve appended a short paper just on the first two verses of Genesis.  See what you think. Then if there’s enough interest we could discuss where this view of Genesis 1:1-2 might take us.  Here are a couple of suggestions:

1)    There really are two accounts of creation (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2)—why not try to harmonize them? 

2)    Let’s discuss the millennial model—the 7000 year model of the ancients.  Does the language of Genesis fit the major events of the four millennia covered by Scripture? 

Look forward to your comments.The paper can be found here: First Two Verses of Genesis.

Dr. John Davison introduced me to the fine work of Bateson. Apparently my posting at UD: Gambler’s Ruin is Darwin’s Ruin was disconcerting enough that world renowned geneticist Joe Felsenstein responded at PandasThumb!

In the process I learned that Bateson and de Vries represented a school of thought which was at variance with Darwinism. Thus my essay on Gambler’s ruin offered indirect support to the work of Bateson and others….

I pointed out at PandasThumb that Bateson has been recently vindicated by NAS member M. Nei in 2007.

See the discussion at: Gambler’s Ruin is Darwin’s Gain.

Physicist John Hartnett had his paper on Carmeli Cosmology accepted by Foundations of Physics Letters.

Luminosity Distance, Angular Size and Surface Brightness in Cosmological General Relativity

I would like to provide the readers a link to Dr. Davison’s An Evolutionary Manifesto.

Because I have been working tirelessly on many things of late, this weblog has not been given as much attention as in the past, but it is not dead.

I encourage our readers to learn wisdom from a long-time professor of biology, Dr. Davison.

John, my sincere apologies for not devoting more time to highlighting your fine work.

Salvador

Just by chance, I saw the song “Shout to the Lord” aired on American Idol’s fund raising drive tonight, April 9, 2008!!! This confirms rumors that this blatantly Christian song would be the finale to the show. This will sure get under the skin of the PZ-mafia….

Here is a rendition of this wonderful song with rich video of footage of what the Creator has made:

Shout to the Lord

See Pee Zee Myer Dons Disguise for his Third Terrorist Action

Seems Lou/JanieBelle taste’s in fashion are becoming a real fad with PZ and friends!

(more…)

FYI:

I found a very good website for our readers who may be interested in learning more about Semi-Conductor physics. At that website is a very good discussion of Finite Barrier Quantum Wells. See:

Britney Spears’ Guide to Semiconductor Physics

In this thread at PandasThumb:

Cordova Defeats TorbTard

TorbTard Larson of PandasThumb argued that I didn’t know the difference between a Fourier Series and a Fourier Transform. He based his flimsy claim on his fallacious notion that Dirichlet conditions applied only in the search for some set of sufficient conditions for a function to have a Fourier Series.

The fact is, however, it is clearly the convention of some texts to reference Dirichlet in connection with Fourier Transforms in addition to Fourier Series as demonstrated in the following link:

Fourier Transforms

If on every finite interval, f satisfies the Dirichlet conditions and if the improper integral exists, the following integral

…
is known as the Fourier transform,

Thus TorbTard fabricated a false claim about me and supported it based on his own faulty understanding of Fourier analysis.

Richard Hoppe, a PT admin, spared TorbTard and Mike Elzinga further embarassment by closing the thread on the grounds it was “off topic”.

Now consider the fact Richard Hoppe closed the thread only after I totally slammed TorbTard to the floor. He didn’t close the thread when it was off topic after 180 some posts over 5 weeks did he? He let it run while it seemed I was losing the debate (at least in his eyes). The moment I started to totally clean TorbTard’s clock, Hoppe pulls the plug.

Well, Hoppe’s a good guy, but man, he deprived me the chance of really skewering the rest of them. At least this thread has my name in the title, and I finished the clear victor over TorbTard Larson. TorbTard will have to go crawl around on the net from now on knowing I totally humiliated him…..

See the challenge I offered here in this comment on a thread about yours truly [me]:
Comment 184: Cordova [supposedly] Rewrites History

Does
x(t) = i sin(t)

satisfy Dirichlet conditions?

This rhetorical question was a counter-example to TorbTard’s idiotic claim:

Dirichlet conditions allow discontinuities but not complex wavefunctions

Charming to see that none of the luminaries at PT are willing to venture an answer to this simple question:

Does
x(t) = i sin(t)

satisfy Dirichlet conditions?

The answer is “YES”, but they refuse to affirm it in order to help one of their own, TorbTard Larson, save face as my counter example refuted TorbTard’s idiotic claim.

The idea that a supposedly ignorant, uneducated YEC would be right about a simple math question is intolerable to them. Saving face for them is more important than coming clean with the truth….

Hahaha……

I had the distinct honor of meeting Bob Fritzius in person for the first time at this lovely resort in Pearl River Mississippi known as the Golden Moon.

The man-made moon reminds me of the Death Star from Star Wars.

Speaking of resorts, I once actually suggested there be an ARN (access research network discussion forum) reunion at Mandalay Bay. It didn’t happen, so this was a nice event instead. Anyway, here is a picture of Mandalay Bay:

But back to the Death Star physics conference….

Bob and I had lunch on Easter Sunday and talked about physics and cosmology.

Foremost in the discussion was the work of Walter Ritz. Second was that of the small universe hypothesis. I think the small universe hypothesis holds a lot of promise especially in light of the fact we have disturbing data suggesting quasars are not distant but close! The issue can be resolved in the future with improved instrumentation and space probes like the parallax measuring Hipparcos mission.

I hope to blog more about Ritz’s work and also about the Small Universe Hypothesis.

But with respect to the small universe hypothesis, consider briefly that the speculation that Quasars are nearby, not 13.5 billion light years away. See:

Proper Motions and Distances of Quasars

These values may be compared to the largest proper motion reported up to now for a planetary nebula, which is 0.040±0.003 arcsec/yr for NGC 7293 (believed to be the nearest planetary nebula). The distance of NGC 7293 is estimated to be 212 pc (Cudworth, 1974); from this it would be reasonable to estimate that the quasar PHL 1033, LB 8956 and LB 8991 lie within a few hundred parsecs from the sun

We can of course bring closure to the issue with better instrumentation, like space based Hipparcos type probes in orbits around the sun at greater distances than the Earth orbit around the sun. I don’t believe the issue is settled by any means…

In the mean time, here is good info on the small universe hypothesis:

Adrian van Maanen’s Small Universe Hypothesis.

It is a remarkable fact that of all the institutions, it would be the stock market that would honor Jesus Christ by closing for trading on Good Friday! When did the tradition begin, and why? I do not know, but it would be worth investigating….

People will call upon the name of the Lord for help in the most curious situations. Prayers and the seeking of God’s favor happens in places you would least expect. For example, consider this common humorous (but somewhat true) observation:

Question: What’s the difference between praying in a church versus praying in a casino?

Answer: When you pray in a casino, you really mean it!

But sincerity in prayer does not necessarily imply the existence of the Person one prays to. So the question I’ve pondered is this: Was there really a Jesus and did He rise from the dead?

The evidential trail is very very sketchy, but what if scientists conclude that humanity is young, just as Christ’s genealogy indicates in Luke chapter 3? This would lend credence to the idea that the Bible was inspired by the Intelligent Designer himself. As renowned physicist and priest John Polkinghorne asserted, Christianity, unlike other religions, makes bold claims about human history.

Renowned Cornell Geneticist John Sanford makes the compelling case that humanity is indeed young in the book Genetic Entropy.

Consider a block of ice sitting outside on a hot day. It cannot have been there for very long. The laws of thermodynamics and entropy dictate the appearance of that block of ice must have been recent. In comparable manner, with respect to genetic entropy and the 4th law of thermodynamics, the appearance of humanity on the Earth must have been a recent event. Sanford argues a nearly invincible case that humanity is young. And unlike theories of mindless Darwinism, Sanford’s thesis is testable, and I believe will be continually vindicated as inexpensive DNA sequencing technologies like Solexa enter the market place…

And what other evidence may there be that Christ was the Intelligent Designer? Physicist Frank Tipler was an atheist some 25 years ago. He began to have doubts about his atheism around the time he published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature in 1983. He defended the idea of unitarity in quantum cosmology, which implies teleology, and the evidence for teleology in physics eventually compelled Tipler to become a theist. The prestigious scientific journal Nature hailed Barrow and Tipler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle in 1987, which was the groundwork for Tipler’s lifelong search for the Intelligent Designer.

Tipler then began to investigate the idea of an Eternal, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Ultimate Observer which is proceeds from the Universal Wave Function derived from Schrodinger’s Equation. He then pondered whether the Ultimate Observer of physics was not only the living God, but the God who became incarnated into human form, born of virgin, died on the cross on Good Friday, and rose from the dead on Easter Sunday.

See the book: Physics of Christianity.

For starters, Tipler observes that the Shroud of Turin has DNA on it consistent with an XX male, which would suggest a virgin birth! He has some other really cool ideas for examining the rocks near the tomb of Jesus for traces of specific kinds of sub-atomic events. He details his research in Physics of Christianity..

I’m skeptical of his ideas, but what do we have to lose by trying? For sure there is no salvation in Darwin, but if humanity is young as claimed by Christ’s genealogy in Luke chapter 3, and if Christ died and rose from the dead, then perhaps there is good news for Christians after all!

Here is some heart warming news about creationist kids refusing to be fed Darwinism: PvM on Teachers Under Fire.