Video: Timelapse of the Entire Universe

[Brightmoon]

Did you read what I wrote? Who cares what some have said? Scientists once said the earth was the center of the universe, remember Ptolemy with his scientific and mathematical epicycles? So we agree that creationists nor scientists always have the truth.....

Your point being????? Unlike you I don't follow the common herd like sheep just because that is what I am told to believe......

. Modern day geocentrists admit that they get their ideas from the Bible not Ptolemy. Actually you do do the sheeplike following thing as you’ve been told that you were wrong by most people who accept evolution( some of whom are professional life scientists ) and you keep putting up the same creationist fantasies .some of your creationist fantasies are so stupidly bad that a high schooler wouldn’t believe it if given all the data creationists leave out

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. Modern day geocentrists admit that they get their ideas from the Bible not Ptolemy. Actually you do do the sheeplike following thing as you’ve been told that you were wrong by most people who accept evolution( some of whom are professionals) and you keep putting up the same creationist fantasies .

Because evolutionists are sheep..... I've even had them tell me right on here they don't care if it's true, just that it is the popular belief.....

Geocentrism, you mean like the Sloan Digital survey????

Or do you mean the Axis of Evil detected in the CMB???

Axis of evil (cosmology) - Wikipedia

"The "Axis of Evil" is a name given to an anomaly in astronomical observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The anomaly appears to give the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance."

"The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation signature presents a direct large-scale view of the universe that can be used to identify whether our position or movement has any particular significance. There has been much publicity about analysis of results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Planck mission that show both expected and unexpected anisotropies in the CMB. The results appear to run counter to expectations from the Copernican Principle. The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the ecliptic are aligned with features of the microwave sky, which on conventional thinking are caused by structure at the edge of the observable universe.

Specifically, with respect to the ecliptic plane the "top half" of the CMB is slightly cooler than the "bottom half"; furthermore, the quadrupole and octupole axes are only a few degrees apart, and these axes are aligned with the top/bottom divide.

Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in a 2006 Edge.org article:

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.""

Hmmmm, seems perhaps you should be following where the data leads you, not ignoring it or trying to change the data to fit your theory.......

 

[DogmaHunter]

Says the person making a bunch of claims flying in the face of science.....

Such as?

While ignoring that the Bible predicted expansion long before scientists ever dreamed the reality.......

Funny how that claim only surfaced AFTER science figured out expansion.
Not that it actually says that in the bible, off course. It's one of those many instances of "re-interpretations" to reverse match a priori belief to facts of reality that can no longer by denied / ignored.

Oh wait, that's how you got expansion wasn't it, a priest had to tell you and describe creation for you.....

No, actually. Hubble discovered the expansion. Hubble wasn't a priest.

ps: George LeMaitre, the priest (and physicist) you are talking about, made a big point about not pretending that his scientific work had anything to do with the bible. So much so even, that when the pope at that time tried to use his Big Bang theory to "prove" that the bible was right, LeMaitre wrote him a letter to politely ask him to shut up about it because it made no sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree, so why try to bring asexual reproduction into the picture as if that was first, since you agree only those doing x did x...... and those not doing x don't do x.....

Your point being??????

I was just pointing out the self-refuting nonsense in your very own statement.

That asexual reproduction existed before sexual reproduction, is a basic fact. Common sense even. non-multicellular life dominated most of the history of this planet. The first few billion years, no such complex life forms existed. At all.
Single cells and even more primitive life, doesn't reproduce sexually.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because evolutionists are sheep..... I've even had them tell me right on here they don't care if it's true, just that it is the popular belief.....[/qutoe]

Is that so ha?
Then I guess you'll have no problem linking to a single "evolutionist"s post where that is being said.

Hmmmm, seems perhaps you should be following where the data leads you, not ignoring it or trying to change the data to fit your theory.......

Says the YEC......


Irony.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I was just pointing out the self-refuting nonsense in your very own statement.

That asexual reproduction existed before sexual reproduction, is a basic fact. Common sense even. non-multicellular life dominated most of the history of this planet. The first few billion years, no such complex life forms existed. At all.
Single cells and even more primitive life, doesn't reproduce sexually.

So you keep claiming, yet even the earliest forms of life that we have found are complex.

You got no evidence to sustain your allegations. In fact the actual fossil evidence goes against you.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Such as?



Funny how that claim only surfaced AFTER science figured out expansion.
Not that it actually says that in the bible, off course. It's one of those many instances of "re-interpretations" to reverse match a priori belief to facts of reality that can no longer by denied / ignored.



No, actually. Hubble discovered the expansion. Hubble wasn't a priest.

ps: George LeMaitre, the priest (and physicist) you are talking about, made a big point about not pretending that his scientific work had anything to do with the bible. So much so even, that when the pope at that time tried to use his Big Bang theory to "prove" that the bible was right, LeMaitre wrote him a letter to politely ask him to shut up about it because it made no sense.

You don’t even know the history of your own theories.....

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

“He proposed on theoretical grounds that the universe is expanding, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble.[3][4] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.”

In fact Hubble did not agree with expansion....

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia

“Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

Quit blaming Hubble for something he didn’t even believe in....

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you keep claiming, yet even the earliest forms of life that we have found are complex.

No it isn't

Oldest fossils ever found show life on Earth began before 3.5 billion years ago

You got no evidence to sustain your allegations. In fact the actual fossil evidence goes against you.....

No it doesn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don’t even know the history of your own theories.....

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

“He proposed on theoretical grounds that the universe is expanding, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble.[3][4] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.”

In fact Hubble did not agree with expansion....

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia

“Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

Quit blaming Hubble for something he didn’t even believe in....

Ha, true. Indeed, got my dates mixed up.

Nevertheless, the point remains: LeMaitre based his ideas on the science that came before him, not on the bible. And when people tried to use his ideas to further a religious agenda, he told them that it is a bad idea.

Also, why are you even trying to make this point? It's not like you accept big bang cosmology, right? So why are you trying to pretend that big bang cosmology is in the bible, since you don't even consider it accurate?

Kind of a strange point to make. ALthough it does illustrate beautifully how dishonestly opportunistic and selective you are in your argumentation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. Modern day geocentrists admit that they get their ideas from the Bible not Ptolemy. Actually you do do the sheeplike following thing as you’ve been told that you were wrong by most people who accept evolution( some of whom are professional life scientists ) and you keep putting up the same creationist fantasies .some of your creationist fantasies are so stupidly bad that a high schooler wouldn’t believe it if given all the data creationists leave out

Lol, those same evolutionists that have to change what they believe because everything they claim as fact then is shown to be false later on?

So what you are saying is you are using information now to claim I am wrong that in a few years will be proven false, as has been shown to be the case over and over and over and over again??????

Lol, if you say so..... You all just crack me up in your dogmatic adherence to things that are in the end never shown to be true.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The correctness of that specific paper, actually.
Not caring about a specific paper is not synonymous to not caring about anything.

Off course you know this.
Yet, here we are...

If you say so.... you read minds now???

First sign of a quack....

Papers passing peer review has exactly zero to do with "popularity".

Off course you know that too...
Yet, here we are.... again.

Except that's all he cared about as he explicitly stated. You can't defend his honesty by being dishonest.....

"if it's passed peer review though that's good enough for me."

Because they are published according to the "rules of engagement" of the scientific process, through scientific channels.

Scientific findings are those findings that come about through use of the scientific method.

So what? Many papers passed peer review that were later falsified.... Thousands every year......

Ideas getting through the harsh scrutiny of the scientific process or not, has nothing to do with popularity.

No one here believes that any more than I do.....

popularity means funding......

Wheter something is true or false, doesn't determine if it is scientific.

Yes I know, that's why you keep trying to pass off those falsehoods as scientific...

Ideas that come about through the process of science, are scientific ideas. Even when they turn out to be wrong.

No, they were just wrong garbage to begin with......

Indeed. The process of science is self-correcting.
You submit your paper and it is peer reviewed as some kind of screening process. When it is publish, scientists subscribing to it read it and thus review it as well. And if you as a reader think it's wrong, you can set out to prove it, write your won paper and submit that as well. It might lead to a publication of your paper and/or a subtraction of the one you just disproved.

Isn't it neat?



That's not what he said at all.
You're being incredibly dishonest again.

I wonder if you do this on purpose or if you genuinly have a readon comprehension problem. Honestly, I have a hard time believing that you really misunderstood what he said so badly.

It's exactly what he said.

Again, you can't defend his honesty with dishonesty.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you say so.... you read minds now???

First sign of a quack....




Except that's all he cared about as he explicitly stated. You can't defend his honesty by being dishonest.....

"if it's passed peer review though that's good enough for me."



So what? Many papers passed peer review that were later falsified.... Thousands every year......




No one here believes that any more than I do.....

popularity means funding......





Yes I know, that's why you keep trying to pass off those falsehoods as scientific...



No, they were just wrong garbage to begin with......





It's exactly what he said.

Again, you can't defend his honesty with dishonesty.....

So, by now both me and @Jimmy D , and perhaps even someone else (i didn't read all the posts), have explained to you how you completely misunderstood what Jimmy was saying and what he meant.

Here you are again, repeating the same nonsense and pretending to know better what jimmy meant then jimmy himself.

What were the words you used again.... "first signs of a quack".

Great.