Strange

Why? Because you say so? Maybe there isn't. Or maybe you don't understand how the brain works. (Both could be true, of course.) Yep, that'll be it. You don't know how the brain works. Thanks for confirming it. But not necessarily language. Oh look: another strawman. How pretty.

Doesn't the word "currently" give you a clue?

What, always?

You might like this: "Stanford astronomers observe the birth of an alien planet" http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/november/proto-planet-forming-111815.html

It is also important to note that the CMB (with exactly that temperature) was predicted well before it was observed. That is why the observation of the CMB killed off steady state models.

That doesn't mean the decision wasn't made freely.

Gosh. I wonder why no one has thought of that. Oh, hang on. That is the basis of the paper in the OP. Arguments from ignorance are so boring. As I said before...

Which appear to be almost the exact opposite of what you claimed. Maybe you should have looked for it first.

I don't see the relevance. I assume a "Good Samaritan" law is one that would require people to help others in need. But as you are resorting to your usual tactic of posting increasingly irrelevant "stuff" with no justification, I will leave it there.

As this is simply an argument from ignorance, I am going to suggest you go and study the subject if you are interested. Hey, guess what. We don't have to because we can look at stars and galaxies at different distances. How about it? How is this relevant?

Is there a Good Samaritan law in England? No. (Although there is in some countries and it has been discussed in the UK.)

And they are always interpreted to suit the purposes of the one doing the interpretation. You want to go to war? The book says you can. You want to be a pacifist? The book will justify it. Against capital punishment? The book will support you. In favour of capital punishment? The book will support you.

Models make predictions. Those predictions are checked against what we see. That is insignificant in the timescales of a galaxy or a star.

You will have to do better than that. You can't just dismiss any bits you don't like by "reinterpreting" them. Really?

I don't believe you. Who conflates them? You seem to be the only person on the planet confused by this. The models are tested against observations. So to say that models do not accurately describe the universe is just not true.

Correct. It isn't. (No more than any other human activity.)

And some people seem to be afraid of science. That has nothing to do with Newton's law. (But that is about the level of scientific expertise we have come to expect from you.) Brilliant. I might have to pinch that.

How do you know that?

I don't think so. Only if you ignore all the other sources of radiation. Because it was all at the same temperature. (It is obviously more complex than this.) What would cause it to change? There are some good sources of information on line if you want to learn, for example: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-286-the-early-universe-fall-2013/video-lectures/

I very much doubt he said that. Roughly - depending on the age of the galaxy and the stars in it. What they look like tells us about what galaxies were like in the past and so allows us to see the changes in galaxies over time. That allows us to develop and test models of galaxy formation. Or, you could use scientific models.

So not much use as a guide to life then.

So what? (This is typical of your incoherent posting style: random irrelevant facts and falsehoods.) It is a good job you didn't attempt to use this to support your case because (yet again) it is a false assertion. Have you ever considered checking any of your "facts" before posting them? And you know this how? Really? What is your evidence for this? What is your evidence for this? There is no reason to accept this until you can provide some evidence. Can you do that? I assume not. It is hard because (a) there obviously is such a thing as intelligence; (b) your arguments consist of unsupported assertions most of which are false. And why do you claim that "they understand everything they see"? I don't know anyone that that applies to. So yet another in your endless series of untrue assertions. What is your evidence for this? What is your evidence for this? You can believe what you like. But with no evidence, and continuous false assertions that demonstrate your ignorance, no one is going to take you seriously.

So by "applied science" you mean "the use of technology". No wonder you think there are so many problems with language - you appear to be unable to use it. FIFY

Did you hear about the dyslexic who brought words to a gnu fight?

Simple. As it moves because you provide it with energy, if you want it to keep moving permanently, you need to supply it with energy permanently.