Kernel Sanders

This is explained in the linked article. Wikipedia can explain better than I can, but basically empty space is not entirely empty. There is a certain amount of electromagnetic radiation present everywhere in the universe (it is not uniform). This ubiquitous radiation is called Cosmic Background Radiation. The non-uniformity and specific layout/structure can be explained by large structures beyond the limits of the visible universe (or so the article claims)

Other way around - energy goes from areas of high energy (hot) to areas of low energy (cold), but you seem to get the point. The Universe tends towards minimum energy, maximum entropy

Again, the linked article explains this. We cannot directly observe these structures (which is pretty much the definition of beyond the visible), but these structures would explain certain features of things that we can directly observe (such as the CMB).

Lightdemon

If it isn't visible, how do we gather data on it?

In other words, do have empiracle evidence of this? Or are we merely hypothesizing based on trends that we have seen according to the CMB?

The two are very different.

The first is a confirmation, the second is a prediction.

Thanks for the correction. I got the two mixed up.

[/quote]

And what difference is that to an Evangelist who says things that we directly observe can be explained thru God (an invisible structure)?

You see, the only thing that is keeping it separate is the empiracle evidence. But this type of argument hinges on a prediction. You would need to have faith in this prediction, to make sense of everything else that comes after it. I do not see a difference between this and a man who has found God, and now sees the way of the universe thru Him.

__________________

Ethereal

Here are some interesting theories on the CMB and cosmic inflation, respectively.

'Axis of evil' a cause for cosmic concern - space - 13 April 2007 - New Scientist Space

Variable speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kernel Sanders

This concepts that the article speaks of are new and entirely theoretical. They are by no means accepted scientific truths

The difference between this and evangelism is that the theory follows the fact. Rather than start with the presumption that there is a God and looking for data that would seem to validate this presumption, the scientist looks at a certain phenomena (in this case the non-uniformity of the CMB) and theorizes about what may have caused this (in this case the researchers propose large structures beyond the visible universe). That theory is then tested against all relevant data, and if it holds up to scrutiny it becomes part of Science with a capital 'S'. If at any time there is even a single instance where a verifiable phenomena contradicts that theory it is revised or abandoned.

There is a large difference between the man who has found the Answer and looks at the world in terms of that Answer, and the man who understands the world through an aggregate of verifiable, constantly revised answers.