Posted on 01/17/2008 10:27:05 AM PST by neverdem
Haven’t you heard, Capernicus agrees with us:
“We therefore assert that the center of the Earth, carrying the Moon’s path, passes in a great circuit among the other planets in an annual revolution around the Sun; that near the Sun is the center of the Universe; and that whereas the Sun is at rest, any apparent motion of the Sun can be better explained by motion of the Earth.”
—Copernicus, N., De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium, Johannes Petreius, Nuremberg, Book I, Chapter 10, 1543
That’s more than a little bit weird.
“The groups of redshifts would be distinct from each other only if our viewing location is less than a million light years from the center.”
That is an interesting claim. My recollection of the explanation Hubble’s work and the big bang is that distant galaxies in all directions had a red shift consistent with an explosion (implicitly) as seen from the center. What would it look like if seen from another location? Say halfway from the center to an edge. From that location, there would be a redshift if you looked in a direction that was further out from the explosion. Looking back toward the center, what shift would one expect?
A question to all is:
If we are not at the center of the universe (origin of the big bang), where is the center? In what direction from our solar system? Just curious. :)
Not geocentrism, but heliocentrism. And it would appear he is in full agreement with Copurnicus on this matter:
"We therefore assert that the center of the Earth, carrying the Moon's path, passes in a great circuit among the other planets in an annual revolution around the Sun; that near the Sun is the center of the Universe; and that whereas the Sun is at rest, any apparent motion of the Sun can be better explained by motion of the Earth."
--Copernicus, N., De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium, Johannes Petreius, Nuremberg, Book I, Chapter 10, 1543.
Thus, the name of Copernicus has been disengenously coopted by Darwinian Big Bangers, when in reality his work most closely resembles that of Creation cosmologists.
==while believing the earth is the center of the universe is harmless and amuses me to no end.
Humphrey’s biblically-based starting assumptions are no more ideological than the starting assumptions of the “Big Bang” model. You do know that the Big Bang model is based on Darwinist ideology, don’t you?
Yes, I was being sarcastic. :) Thank you for the concern, though. I hear ya.
Some Creationists argue that the Big Bang model was initially opposed by ‘eeeevil Scientists’ because it posited a beginning to the Universe as the Bible says. But as I pointed out before, no two Creationist sources agree; which is the price you pay when you turn your back on the empirical method.
An attempt to make a gallon of lemonade with one lemon. I know more people who think monkeys are amusing pseudohumans than people who have a "visceral revulsion" to them. They have them for pets, dress them up in little suits, make movies with them. Comparative psychologists are fascinated by them.
Not to mention the canard of anthrogenic global warming, and the discredited "connection" between dietary fat and heart disease.
You have to be the most mendacious, deceptive, and hateful fool that has ever posted on FR.
Wear it with pride.
You should have figured it out by now mom; he's one of them. That's how he gets off; it's the most important thing in his miserable life, and he doesn't want to admit that his enabling drugs are what's killing him.
"You do know that the Big Bang model is based on Darwinist ideology, don’t you?".
Was that supposed to be a trick question? Darwin? Uh, we read that Erasmus Darwin proposed a fluctuating, cyclic model of expansion and contraction...
But wasn't it that monk Georges Lemaître that gets credit for proposing the one expansion/explosion, from one prime, small, even *tiny* spot?
Two words:
Peppered Moth.
Still defended by some of the most ardent evolutionist zealots. All the while claiming that they know the whole entire “experiment” was staged.....
Let’s see, I graduated in 1987 from H.S. and the peppered moth was still in my biology textbook... So if you’re claiming that evolution zealots don’t use debunked evolution theories to try and still prove evolution, then I don’t think “you” know how wrong you are.
Thanks for sharing your views!
You don’t know the real reason for the acceptance of Ptolemy’s astronomy? It fit the available data, data that began to be collected thousands of years before Christ by men trained to read the movements of the lights in the night sky and to trace their patterns they saw forming. Ptolemy simply appled geometry to describe these movements. Only because it increasingly required more and more elaborate devises to save the theory. Once Copernicus repopularized the rival view and astronomers began to fit the data, and to modify the Copernican model in accordance, it began to supercede the old model. The new physics and a new mathematics supportd the new model, but it was not until the 18th Century that Ptolomey was finally relegated to the attic, along with the ancient physiology and in the 19th Century much of the old biology. To contend that religious obscurantism adamantly opposed the advance of science is refuted by the fact that Galileo himself was a strongly religious man who, ironically, pointed the way to reconcile Christianity with the new sciences in the very book that brought him condemnation.
Don't you think your comment should be in "Breaking New"? When someone called, "GodGunsGuts", says the argument is over then that surely is breaking news....or breaking wind....hmmmm....what's that smell
It shows the level of knowledge of the subject that you come in claiming that present day Biologists defend Piltdown when the hoax got scant support contemporaneously and none among the present day community; then claim an entire experiment was staged because it had a picture of a white moth pinned next to a dark moth.
And nothing is ever going to ‘prove’ a theory.
Which will come as a great surprise to Fr. Georges Lemaître, the Roman Catholic priest who proposed it.
No, am not. For Darwin’s “random variation” to be taken seriously nowadays it has to be defined on the biochemical - physical chemistry level. Darwin thought cells would prove to be in essence what he thought he saw when looking at thin slices of cork bark.
Firstly, the “Darwinists” advance a “theory”, actually an hypothesis, so the burden of proof is not upon me to disprove thier hypothesis but rather the burden of proof lies with the “Darwinist” who must convince me. (Just like the anthropogenic global warming guys must.)
Secondly see my post #179.
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.