It’s an Obama World–
Good Question: So just to be clear, it’s constitutional to penalize someone for not showing proof of health insurance but not request proof of citizenship?
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew" ~ Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord" ~ Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!" ~ Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
When former social secretaries gave a luncheon to welcome Ms. Rogers earlier this year, one participant said, she surprised them by suggesting the Obamas were planning a "non-religious Christmas" -- hardly a surprising idea for an administration making a special effort to reach out to other faiths.
The lunch conversation inevitably turned to whether the White House would display its creche, customarily placed in a prominent spot in the East Room. Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display - a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood. (A White House official confirmed that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the creche.)
Yet in the end, tradition won out; the executive mansion is now decorated for the Christmas holiday, and the creche is in its usual East Room spot.
“Deborah Jones, who once was given the title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electric cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes at gunpoint. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Miss Davis’ mouth and placed against Miss Davis’ face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vice. Karenga, head of US, also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said.”
[1] “Kwanzaa -- Racist Holiday from Hell” By Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson; FrontPageMagazine.com | December 29, 2004 – http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16474
[2] Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson (a black-American) is the Founder and President of BOND (the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, www.bondinfo.org). He is also the author of the book SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America. For more information, please call 1-800-411-BOND (2663), or e-mail bond@bondinfo.org.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Afrocentrism is a political movement that believes Greek culture was borrowed from Black Africans. Among others on the Afrocentrist side is Emeritus Professor of Near Eastern History Martin Bernal who wrote Black Athena. Among others opposing him is Mary Lefkowitz, classical scholar and author of Not Out of Africa who denies the Greeks stole culture from Black Egyptians. There are some moderate positions, but the whole Afrocentrism controversy is based on concepts of race and racism, and is therefore very difficult to discuss without enraging someone.
[5] Kerenga believes that the black race are the real Jewish peoples, much like Christian Identity – the religious movement of the KKK – believes the white race to be the true Jewish peoples. The bottom line is this: both views are founded in racist ideology!
[6] Carlotta Morrow, the main author I quoted from heavily in my first letter to the school, (a black-American woman) began her research on Kwanzaa in the early 1980's after her sister, who was a member of Dr. Karenga's black activist group called the United Slaves (US) Organization, denounced her faith in Christ, claiming that Christianity was a white man's religion.
Determined to find out the teachings that persuaded her sister's complete change in faith, she went with her sister to "the Center" to hear what was being taught. She was deeply disturbed at the "us""white man" against the attitude that seeped through the meetings, and especially at the negativity directed toward the Christian and Jewish religions.
Seeing the spiritual and racial harm being subtly encouraged, Carlotta began her trek in learning, researching and exposing the real truth and spiritual seductiveness of the principles behind Kwanzaa.
She has had articles on Kwanzaa appear in the Southern California Christian Times, the Twin City Christian Magazine of Minnesota, Tout Timoun Nou Yo also of Minnesota, (a quarterly for families with children adopted from Haiti) and has been a guest on radio talk shows in the Southern California area which included an on-air discussion with Dr. Karenga on the Mason Weaver Show of KPRZ in San Diego, where the author resides.
In case you have never seen or heard Mason Weaver, here he is:
Her site is: http://christocentric.com/Kwanzaa/
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has just discovered this video clip from a late 1970s appearance by Ayn Rand on the Phil Donahue show, in which she makes some rather politically incorrect remarks about Muslim Middle-Easterners."But if you mean whose side should one be on Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel!"
Israel is up against "a group of almost totally primitive savages, who have not changed for years, and are racist, and resent Israel because it is bringing industry, intelligence, modern technology..."
"They're terrorists... they're monsters..."
Assemblymember Dede Scozzafava accepts the Margaret Sanger Award at Family Planning Advocates of New York States' 31st Annual Conference.
To sue or not to sue? That is the question.
After racist statements were made up out of thin air and then attributed to Rush Limbaugh, these were the options he had.
It is easy for me to understand that these are not simple choices because I have faced those options as well. Recently there have been a number of columns made up by others and put on the Internet with my name on them. The things said in those bogus columns have nothing in common with anything that I have said, in my columns, in my books or anywhere else.
Years ago, CBS reporter Lem Tucker said in a broadcast on October 13, 1981 that my views "seem to place him in the school that believes that maybe most blacks are genetically inferior to white people."
Anyone interested in the facts could have discovered that I had argued directly against this idea in a number of writings, including a feature article in the New York Times Magazine on March 27, 1977.
An attorney I did not know, but who had read my writings and knew that what was insinuated in that broadcast was totally false, offered to represent me in a lawsuit against CBS. That was when I faced the kind of dilemma that Rush Limbaugh faces now.
When someone is considered to be a "public figure"-- and Rush Limbaugh is certainly that-- the Supreme Court has narrowed the grounds on which that public figure can sue for libel, to the point where even the most blatant lie can often go unpunished.
Worse yet, there may be millions of people who never heard the original lie but who will hear it repeated in the media as a result of news stories about the lawsuit. And when those who committed character assassination are let off the hook on a technicality, they can claim "vindication," as if what they said was true.
The question facing any public figure who has been the target of character assassination in the media is: Is it worth investing a large amount of time in a process that can make you worse off by spreading the very lie that you are suing to stop?
The down side of not suing is that it allows the lie to continue to be repeated in the media, with later repetitions being justified in terms of "just reporting" what someone else said.
No one can resolve this dilemma for someone else. My decision in 1981 was that I had too many other things to do for me to go into the exhausting and time-consuming process of suing CBS, with such dicey odds in the courts.
Every situation is different, so whether Rush Limbaugh should sue is a question that only he can answer.
The question for the media to answer is: Are lies to go unchallenged when they are lies against someone you disagree with? Worse yet, are they to be excused, rationalized or even repeated?
Already there are people on television saying that, although Rush didn't actually say the things that have been attributed to him, he has said other things that they choose to call "racist."
If those other things really are racist, why don't they quote them, instead of something that was made up out of whole cloth?
The Rush Limbaugh show has, after all, been broadcast for many years, three hours a day. There are thousands of hours of those broadcasts that people can go back through to look for things to quote.
If critics can't find anything racist in all that material, why should an outright lie about what the man said be given a pass?
As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
Ultimately, this is not about Rush Limbaugh or anybody else who is smeared with impunity. It is about the whole climate in which issues are discussed.
Without a range of opposing opinions being available to the public, the basic concept of a self-governing democracy is a mockery. If views that some people don't like can be silenced or discredited by character assassination, the whole country loses.
The courts should not be the only line of defense. Common decency should be the first line of defense, so that people who smear others will pay a price in the outrage that their lies should provoke, even among decent people who do not agree with the target of their smears.
US News | Fri, Jul 24, 2009
Dr. David McKalip, who sent out that vile racist image of Barack Obama as a witch doctor (with a bone through his nose) to a tea party mailing list, is deeply connected with Ron Paul and his “Campaign for Liberty” organization. Here’s an article he published at their website yesterday: Campaign For Liberty — Stop Obamacare Now! | by David McKalip, M.D.
Googling for “Dr. David McKalip ron paul” brings up hundreds more connections. He appears to be a personal friend of both Ron Paul and his son Rand. Am I surprised that Ron Paul is associated with these kinds of people? Not a bit.
And that’s not all. Dr. McKalip has also sued the state of Florida to try to get out of reporting his surgical infection rates to the state.
This guy is a real piece of work.
McKalip is also a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, an organization that promotes anti-vaccination craziness and Vince Foster conspiracy theories, and was involved in the fanatical efforts to keep the brain-dead Terri Schiavo on life support: CNS, Fox Business silent on controversial views of medical group. (Hat tip: Killgore.)
The Florida Medical Association has released a statement denouncing McKalip: FMA - Florida Medical Association.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (July 23, 2008) - The Florida Medical Association is an organization with a zero-tolerance for racist or discriminatory behavior. As such, we do not condone the circulation of what has been described by the press as a racist depiction of President Obama by David McKalip, MD. Dr. McKalip’s actions do not in anyway reflect the positions, attitudes or culture of the Florida Medical Association.
The Florida Medical Association finds the actions by Dr. McKalip to be hurtful and in poor judgment. Further, we find his actions disrespectful to President Obama and the Office of the President. The Florida Medical Association is disappointed by Dr. McKalip’s actions and urges Dr. McKalip to extend President Obama an apology for this egregious deed.
This statement led to a non-apology apology from Dr. McKalip: Doctor apologizes for circulating ‘offensive’ Obama image.
ST. PETERSBURG - A prominent St. Petersburg neurosurgeon has apologized to President Barack Obama after the physician shared with fellow members of the conservative Tea Party movement an image depicting the president as an African witch doctor, dressed in a loin cloth and wearing bones in his nose.
McKalip also resigned today from the Pinellas County Medical Association, where he was to be the next president.
“The image has nothing to do with my feelings or thoughts on any race or culture,” David McKalip wrote.
“Nothing to do with” his feelings on race? So we’re supposed to believe he sent around a picture of a black president with a freaking bone through his nose — and never even noticed that it was offensively racist?
Note - Harry Binswanger, Ph.D. in philosophy, teaches for the Objectivist Academic Center. He was an associate of Ayn Rand and is editor of The Ayn Rand Lexicon and the revised edition of Ayn Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. He is the author of The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts and the founding editor/publisher of The Objectivist Forum. More information Ayn Rand Institute.
~ (Hypnojive 2 h/t -- "James von Brunn: Evolutionist") ~
This is also a response to Little Green Footballs post, "Klinghoffer: Von Brunn the Evolutionist" -- See also my outing of the metaphysical naturalism on display over at LGF: "Little Green Footballs Bias Against Intelligent Design" I also highly recommend this article/post on the matter, "If you accept the argument in Descent of Man, you accept a racist argument."
Now isn't this fascinating. James von Brunn , the white-supremacist suspect in the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting in which the guard who was shot has now tragically died, describes the relevance of evolution to his sick thinking. He's obsessed with "genetics." He writes in his manifesto (emphasis added):
Approval of inter-racial breeding is predicated on idiotic Christian dogma that God's children must love their enemies (a concept JEWS totally reject); and on LIBERAL/MARXIST/JEW propaganda that all men/races are created equal. These genocidal ideologies, preached from the American pulpits, taught in American schools, legislated in the halls of Congress (confirming TALMUDIC conviction that goyim are stupid sheep), are expected to produce a single, superintelligent, beautiful, non-White "American" population. Eliminating forever racism, inequality, bigotry and war. As with ALL LIBERAL ideologies, miscegenation is totally inconsistent with Natural Law: the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation. Only the strong survive. Cross-breeding Whites with species lower on the evolutionary scale diminishes the White gene-pool while increasing the number of physiologically, psychologically and behaviorally deprived mongrels. Throughout history improvident Whites have miscegenated. The "brotherhood" concept is not new (as LIBERALS pretend) nor are the results -- which are inevitably disastrous for the White Race -- evident today, for example, in the botched populations of Cuba, Mexico, Egypt, India, and the inner cities of contemporary America. (Here’s the PDF version of Von Brunn’s “manifesto.”)
This wacko despises Christianity, too, though not quite as much as he does Judaism. Like Hitler in Mein Kampf, he draws lessons from his interpretation of Darwinism.
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all…. If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.” (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy [New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942], pp. 161-162)
One must keep in mind that this militant atheism is harmful and needs to be countered with Biblical principles. For instance, one article points out the following:
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” (G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30)
Here I think a re-post of an old paper is apt to make the above point that Hypnojive reintroduces folks to, enjoy:
Racism and Evolutionary Thought
Consider the following excerpt from a letter written by Charles Darwin in 1881:
“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit…. The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”[1]
Lest this be considered merely an aberration, note that
And
“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest. But whatever the position of stable equilibrium into which the laws of social gravitation may bring the negro, all responsibility for the result will henceforward lie between Nature and him. The white man may wash his hands of it, and the Caucasian conscience be void of reproach for evermore. And this, if we look to the bottom of the matter, is the real justification for the abolition policy.”[3]
Huxley was not only militantly racist but also lectured frequently against the resurrection of Christ, in whom “[we] are all one” (Galatians 3:28). In sharp distinction to the writings of such noted evolutionists as Hrdlicka, Haeckel, and Hooton, biblical Christianity makes it crystal clear that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” (Galatians 3:28). In Christianity we sing, “Red and yellow, black and white, all are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.” In the evolutionary hierarchy blacks are placed at the bottom, yellows and reds somewhere in the middle, and whites on top. As H. F. Osborn, director of the
“If an unbiased zoölogist were to descend upon the earth from Mars and study the races of man with the same impartiality as the races of fishes, birds and mammals, he would undoubtedly divide the existing races of man into several genera and into a very large number of species and subspecies.
“ … This is the recognition that the genus Homo is subdivided into three absolutely distinct stocks, which in zoölogy would be given the rank of species, if not of genera, stocks popularly known as the Caucasian, the Mongolian and the Negroid.
“The spiritual, intellectual, moral, and physical characters which separate these three great human stocks are far more profound and ancient than those which divide the Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean races. In my opinion these three primary stocks diverged from each other before the beginning of the Pleistocene or Ice Age. The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters, such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.”[4]
Think of the historical consequences that are the direct and logical results of the naturalist worldview. For instance, Adolf Hitler, appealed to the people of his country to have a backbone to advance the logical outworking of their worldview. Now mind you, not all naturalists are racists or killers of the less fortunate… however, this is a logical outworking of philosophical [or, metaphysical] naturalism.
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all…. If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”[5]
Hitler referred to this dispensation of nature as “quite logical.” In fact, it was so logical to the Nazis that they built concentration camps to carry out their convictions about the human race as being “nothing but the product of heredity and environment” or as the Nazis liked to say, “of blood and soil.”[6]
It is significant to note that some of the Crusaders and others who used force to further their creeds in the name of God were acting in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ. [7]
The teachings of Osborn, Huxley, Hitler and others like them, however, are completely consistent with the teachings of Darwinian evolution. Indeed, social Darwinism has provided the scientific substructure for some of the most significant atrocities in human history. For evolution to succeed, it is as crucial that the unfit die as the fittest survive. Marvin Lubenow graphically portrays the ghastly consequences of such beliefs in his book Bones of Contention:
“If the unfit survived indefinitely, they would continue to ‘infect’ the fit with their less fit genes. The result is that the more fit genes would be diluted and compromised by the less fit genes, and evolution could not take place. The concept of evolution demands death. Death is thus as natural to evolution as it is foreign to biblical creation. The Bible teaches that death is a ‘foreigner,’ a condition superimposed upon humans and nature after creation. Death is an enemy, Christ has conquered it, and he will eventually destroy it. Their respective attitudes toward death reveal how many light years separate the concept of evolution from Biblical creation.”[8]
Adolph Hitler’s philosophy that Jews were subhuman and that Aryans were supermen (mirroring the beliefs Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood) led to the extermination of about six million Jews. In the words of Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist: “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of
Karl Marx, the father of communism, saw in Darwinism the scientific and sociological support for an economic experiment that eclipsed even the carnage of Hitler’s
“I have spent well-nigh fifty tears working on the history of our Revolution. In the process, I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own towards the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were to asked today the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that has swallowed up some sixty-million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened’.”
It should be noted as well that Darwinian evolution (man evolving from lower creatures) is sexist as well. Under the subheading “Difference in the Mental Powers of the Two Sexes,”
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by mans attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…We may also infer…[that] the average of mental power in man must be above that of women.”
In sharp contrast to the evolutionary dogma, Scripture makes it clear that all humanity is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Acts 17:29); that there is essential equality between the sexes (Galatians 3:28); and that slavery is as repugnant to God as murder and adultery (1 Timothy 1:10).
Appendix
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1947).
p 15
“Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution … as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
p 28
“To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation we must turn again to
p 72
“Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect, the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim? This may be a merit, but if so it is one which has not been openly acknowledged by Christian philosophers.”
p 150
“The law of evolution, as formulated by
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, last paragraph.
“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”
[1] Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, I, Letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316; cited in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by Gertrude Himmelfarb (London: Chatto & Windus, 1959), p. 343.
[4] Henry Fairfield Osborn, “The Evolution of Human Races,” Natural History (January/February 1926), reprinted in Natural History, vol. 89 (April 1980), p. 129.
[5] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy (New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942), pp. 161-162.
[6] “The SS Blood and Soul,” one of four videos in a video series entitled, The Occult History of the Third Reich (St. Lauret, Quebec: Madacy Entertainment Group, 1998); Now in DVD – ISBN: 0974319465).
[7] This is a side note for those who are of the Christian faith: The Bible does not teach the horrible practices that some have committed in its name. It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the details it produces evil because the individual people [“Christians”] are actually living in rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it [religion] can produce evil, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism (non-religious practices) actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of à God. For example: the Inquisitions (2), Crusades (7), and the Salem Witch Trials killed about 40,000 persons combined (World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana). A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what non-religious criminals have committed; the Chinese regime of Mao Tse Tung, 60 million [+] dead (1945-1965), Stalin and Khrushchev, 66 million dead (USSR 1917-1959), Khmer Rouge (Cambodia 1975-1979) and Pol Pot, one-third of their respective populations dead; etc, etc. The difference here is that these non-God movements are merely living out their worldview, the struggle for power, survival of the fittest and all that, no natural law is being violated in other words (as atheists reduce everything to natural law – materialism). However, when people have misused the Christian religion for personal gain, they are in direct violation to what Christ taught, as well as to Natural Law.
(There was a comment left in the comment section to which this is a reply)
From a Debate Many Years Ago
I will answer you in full, and I ask that you have the patience to read it all (it will be multiple posts). Now, about the background radiation and red-shifts. I will quote some of the headlines from Nature magazine and Scientific American and other journals and magazine sources (all evolutionary in slant of course). Then I will give some places for you to go article-wise to follow up. “Down with the Big Bang;” “The Big Bang Theory Goes Kerplooey;” “The Big Bang Theory Explodes;” “Sorry, Big Bang Theory is a Dud;” “Map Challenges Theory of Universe;” “Astronomers' New Data Jolt Vital Part of Big Bang Theory;” “Quasar Clumps Dim Cosmological Theory.” These have been titles of a few of the articles found in newspapers and science journals in the last two or three years, as the Big Bang theory has received one body blow after another.
The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across. [R. B. Tully, Astrophysics Journal 303:25-38 (1986)]
In November of 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced the results of their research. Their map of the sky revealed what they termed the "Great Wall" – a huge sheet of galaxies 200 million light years across and 700 million light years long [M. J. Geller and J. P. Huchra, Science 246:897-903 (1990)].
A team of American, British, and Hungarian astronomers, it is reported, discovered even larger structures [E. G. Lerner, Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 38-43].
Even more recently (January 3, 1991), Will Saunders and nine fellow astronomers published the results of their all-sky redshift survey of galaxies detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite. This survey revealed the existence of a far-greater number of massive superclusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by Big Bang cosmologies [Will Saunders, et al, Nature 349:32-38 (1991)].
Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth [R. Cowen, Science News 139:52 (1991)].
Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that “This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory.” Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars.
If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. Sure enough, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave background radiation of 2.7° < !#P6MJ239 > < !#P255DJ0 > K. Evolutionary cosmologists were absolutely delighted. This discovery was considered proof of the Big Bang, and Penzias and Wilson were duly awarded Nobel Prizes. It now appears, however, that the background radiation may turn out to be additional evidence against the Big Bang theory, rather than its proof.
Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was perfectly smooth. Theorists were delighted, smug in the assurance that this background radiation was the leftover whimper of the Big Bang. Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies and great voids in space. Thus, if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang. Astronomers thus began to search for differences in the background radiations. All measurements showed it to be perfectly smooth. Thus COBE was launched to an orbit 559 miles above the earth, carrying sensitive instruments to measure the background radiation. Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth [E. G. Lerner, Aerospace America, March 1990, p. 41]
“No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang.” [E. G. Lerner, Aerospace America, March 1990, p. 42]
“Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on ‘plasma processes’ and a ‘revised steady-state theory’ have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies.” [E. G. Lerner, Aerospace America, March 1990, p. 43], [ A. L. Peratt, The Sciences, January/February 1990, p. 24],[ H. C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar, and N. C. Wickramasinghe, Nature 346:807-812 (1990)]
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~zac/chapter9.htm#Constant Headaches or Hubble Trouble
