Re: Evolution Vs. Creationism Debate Finished

On Jun 28, 3:29 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:25:56 -0700, m...@xxxxxxxxxx enriched this

group when s/he wrote:
On Jun 26, 11:23 am, trickya...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
There is no point in debating weather or not evolution is correct. It
is. The book of Genesis has been debunked by science

Do you expect everyone to believe this?

Most sensible people do.

On the contrary, most insensible do. The fact is every observation
confirms the fact that "intelligence did it." I walked along the
beach and saw writing in the sand. I said, intelligence did it, not
non-intelligence. On the other hand, you would say, "moi, the
probability is that monkeys could write Shakespeare. So that means by
happen chance, erosion, etc, writing can form in the sand that looks
very much coincidental to what humans write, yuk, yuk."






and
astrophysicists have proven that the only way in which the planet
Earth has been create.

You sound incoherent here. You must have been in a hurry.

Biologists have also used genetics, fossils,
and the appearance of vestigial structures in many organisms. How
stupid do you have to be to think a organism named "God" created
humans and all biotic and a-biotic factors.

Interestingly enough cosmologists have known for a long time that the
center of the big bang points to this area.

Firking rubbish you moron. I would class myself as a cosmologist,
having been involved with it on and off since my time at university.
There is no centre to the big bang and no cosmologist I know, and I
know quite a lot on first name terms, would ever think there is.

You have shown many times that you do not understand anything about
the Big Bang, and this is another clear example of your total
ignorance of the subject.

False. As I said before Hubble, himself, said that there must be NO
favored location in the universe. That's the deep dark secret of
cosmology.

JM




But some of them have
been trying to suppress it or to provide substitute reasons as to why
our observations are supposedly wrong. Why is this? Edwin Hubble
said that there must be no favored location in our universe.

That sounds like a philosophical reason, not one based on
observation.

What observation McClueless.



JM

--
Bob.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Postulates of Relativity and The Cosmic Background - Question
    ... >> the mass in the universe should result in a Lobachevskian pattern ... > but it is not true of big bang cosmologies. ... > True in that SR cosmology, but not in big bang models. ... >> (but this is not the main reason) The main reason is that in our ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang ... al., "The Extragalactic Universe: ... Cosmology has progressed somewhat rapidly in the last several years, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science Disproves Evolution
    ... decades as cosmology. ... D, 3He, and 4He and 7Li provide strong evidence for Big Bang ... But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs ... al., "The Extragalactic Universe: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Big Bang is not the Beginning of TIme......The latest non-linear cosmology.
    ... > A Brief Introduction to the Cyclic Universe ... It appears that, billions of years after the big bang, following the ... > arising as the Universe was collapsing towards a big crunch, ... > The prospects for an alternative cosmology that is so different from the ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Evolution Vs. Creationism Debate Finished
    ... Intelligent creation of all sorts of things. ... There is no centre to the big bang and no cosmologist I know, ... favored location in the universe. ... Exactly, Hubble did say there was no favored location in the universe, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading