Re: I have another argument that needs refuting

"On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:57:57 GMT, in article
<FJTug.122328$H71.77179@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Harshman stated..."

shinryuken88@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...snip...]
They say that the entire universe was compacted
down to a speck no bigger then a period. This dot spun faster and
faster until it exploded into the universe.

That's no theory that I recognize.
[...snip...]

Just out of curiosity, I wonder where that does come from.

The smallness, OK. And I can understand why someone could garble it as
being an explosion. But I can't think of anything that could even be
misunderstood as "This dot spun faster and faster".


--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20

.