http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0807tj.asp
Found on talk.origins usenet newsgroup, in reply to a post linking to the above article:
Found on talk.origins usenet newsgroup, in reply to a post linking to the above article:
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Caught red-shifted
- Thread starter Jerry Smith
- Start date
It should be noted that Tifft and Arp, like many other scientists who work outside the mainstream, still do science.
Why? Because they adhere to the method, and open their work up to review. They're unorthodox, and their work suspect because it's counter to the current understanding (which has a great deal to back it).
But because they open their work to the mainsteam to review, because they adhere to the method, if they are correct it will ultimately become the new mainstream for others to defend and attack.
Why? Because they adhere to the method, and open their work up to review. They're unorthodox, and their work suspect because it's counter to the current understanding (which has a great deal to back it).
But because they open their work to the mainsteam to review, because they adhere to the method, if they are correct it will ultimately become the new mainstream for others to defend and attack.
Upvote
0
Did you ever check out the papers I gave you, Nick? The ones that were quite conclusive on the subject?
Further, I suggest you check out Geller and Huchra, whose deep surveys show that the apparant quantinization is an artifact of the way galaxies cluster. If you look in a narrow direction, you'll see galaxies at specific redshifts with significant gaps between them, but if you look wider the effect is lost.
I've been informed you can see a nice diagram of it in most basic astronomy books, such as
Enjoy.
Further, I suggest you check out Geller and Huchra, whose deep surveys show that the apparant quantinization is an artifact of the way galaxies cluster. If you look in a narrow direction, you'll see galaxies at specific redshifts with significant gaps between them, but if you look wider the effect is lost.
I've been informed you can see a nice diagram of it in most basic astronomy books, such as
Enjoy.
Upvote
0
Quite frankly, I haven't taken a word you've said seriously ever since you "exposed" Ken Ham's radio spot without listening to it. Your credibility is so far below zero that it's not worth following a single link you have to offer.
Upvote
0
Nick can't argue against it, so he attacks Morat's credibility instead. Do you really want to start arguing about who's more credible around here, Nick, or are you just trying to distract us?
- Joe
- Joe
Upvote
0
Haven't I mentioned how bad Nick makes Creationists look? There's already that undercurrent of "They just accept without questioning, refuse to look at evidence, etc, etc, etc".
Nick's so much the "worst version" of a Creationist that at times I think he's a troll.
Nick's so much the "worst version" of a Creationist that at times I think he's a troll.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
