Posted on 01/17/2008 10:27:05 AM PST by neverdem
Can you do that GGG? Point me to that supposed NEW evidence? Or just another link with nothing new?
Your cognitive limitation shows. Humphreys' mathematically perfect cosmos is actually an expanded Helio-centric view.
In it, he uses all the available scientific observations to prove that our sun is truly at the center of the cosmos. I'm sure that that fact is disturbing to you, but it has yet to be refuted, although much effort has been expended toward that goal, fruitlessly.
And they hate it even more that his starting assumptions come from the Bible. And they hate him still more for discovering that if you plug said biblical assumptions into General Relativity, a universe with both a center and an edge literally “fall out” of the equations. That’a almost too much for a Big Bang Darwinist to bear!
But for a thousand years or so they most definitely argued against sun-centered astronomical theories. Most definitely did.
Well put. Thanks. You saved me a 30 seconds of typing!!Oh, boy not this S. again! This debate will go on until the Muzzies take over, as it’s bound to happen at this rate of their expansion, and then it’ll be settled for once and for all.
And by the way, I don’t have Piltman Man in this dogfight.
==Nothing in that was new. Want to point me to the supposed NEW evidence that supports your silly conjecture of the centrality of our small planet within our universe?
Can you do that GGG? Point me to that supposed NEW evidence? Or just another link with nothing new?
Actually, that’s all pretty new stuff. Except of course the quote from Copernicus. Did you know that Copernicus believed in a heliocentric universe? It would seem the the Copernican Principle has been badly misnamed! LOL
As for something newer, how about this:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5181
...and in case you miss the tiny link to the PDF document in that aticle, try this:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/journal_of_creation/vol21/5181creationist.pdf
For starters, the fruit fly experiments conducted over the early decades of the last century amounted to an absolute laboratory disproof of evolution. Several highly qualified scientists publicly renounced evolution as a consequence including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt. No normal science theory survives something like that; only religions and ideological doctrines go on as if nothing had happened after being utterly disproved in such a manner.
Please don't pretend that you actually desire to continue a conversation with someone you thoroughly taunted for a single use of the word "Dude"
Correct or incorrect, his statement was reasonably presented, your position was lost in the noise of your overreaction.
the article misdirects the problem. The argument is not about Darwin and science, but about Genesis and myth.
It's not an illusion but otherwise, he's right.
Those who wish to eliminate this illusionary meme from our general meme pool may be acting in the name of science; but it is by no means obvious that they are acting in the name of civilization and humanity.
Ouch!
The more that you conflate Creationism with Geocentricism the better as far as I am concerned. Let everyone know the caliber of Science that you and other Creationists find convincing. Advertise to the world that Creationists not only believe things sillier than most people imagine; they believe things sillier than most people are CAPABLE of imagining.
Ahhhhh. GGG. You are truly a Prince among Creationists. I wish they were all as forthcoming as you about their intractable and antiquated views. I wish I could wish you as much good luck with your campaign to discount the H.I.V./A.I.D.S. connection as well; but some nutters might actually take you serious on that, and THAT would have consequences; while believing the earth is the center of the universe is harmless and amuses me to no end.
I am learning that is is best to stand aside when you are lecturing on science.
Nothing I could say would surpass your self-inflicted wounds.
I like monkeys.
Not a fan of what they do with their crap though.
And I never leave the zoo right after watching the monkeys.
BINGO!!!
It’s not natural selection that so many creationists have problems with, it’s what’s referred to as speciation; that is that natural selection can provide for enough differences to cause a significant enough change in species to make them incapable of breeding with each other and give rise to completely new species.
One should never let little things like names, centuries or continents get in the way a of a zinger.
And that just about says it all, across the scientific spectrum.
It was later than that. It was the mid 1800’s.
Here are some links on Simmelweis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi622.htm
Now wait a sec, not being directly familiar with the experiments to which you're referring, I'm assuming they used fruit flies due to the abbreviated life spans in relation to our own, days to our decades. That being the case, the theories of evolution I've known (and I am a subscriber to evolution as a overall theory) posit that evolution takes thousands of years for even a small alteration in the species to set in (as opposed to individual mutations) None of the theories I've read posit that the changes are brought about by a number of generations passing. So fruit flies within the theory, wouldn't necessarily evolve any faster than other species just because they die quicker.
Am I misinterpreting the point of your example?
You should have read before responding. If and when you do read the articles, you will be embarrassed at your own stupidity (if you are intelligent and honest enough).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.