- --- In email@example.com, "Dave Oldridge"
> On 29 Nov 2008 at 16:18, Gabor Horvath wrote:
> > David Williams(partia, to Monk)
> > Last year I borrowed the movie Network from my public library. It
> > was made in 1976 and was made as a parody of TV news. But what wa
> > parody became a reality. I have a theory for this. Humans did notof
> > just descend from apes, they still are apes. What you saw on the
> > telly was a bunch of apes. We do not have to always act like the
> > lowest common denominator. I believe that we can almost always be
> > and act better than we are.
> > Gabor:
> > Brilliant David, thank you. Mankind did not "evolve" from a common
> > ancestor of apes. Menknind devolves into apes., and the "theory"
> > "evolution" is one of the motors to accelerate the process. BestWhere is this "cogent evidence" you claim is being rejected about
> > regards.
> That's not what David said. He said we ARE apes. And that is
> correct. You can pretend otherwise all you want. That just makes
> you in error and wilfully so, since you categorically reject very
> cogent evidence that we ARE apes.
> True, we are the most successful species of ape to date. And also
> true, our souls are somewhat different from those of the other apes
> (though not as much as you probably believe).
> Dave Oldridge
> ICQ 454777283
humans being apes? Why are the disputed missing links between apes
and humans so important if humans are apes? Apes are known as knuckle
walkers even though they can painfully walk on their hind limbs.
Their hips, neck and skull are different to the humans in anatomy as
well. Humans have extreme pain in their neck when they try to
knucklewalk. These are but a few things that differentiate apes from
humans. What else besides the mathematically impossible idea known
as "evolution" says that humans are apes?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Laurie Appleton"
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: alphaori2002
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 10:56 AM
> Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Why ? Re: conditioned
> LA> He states that there are 38 cases redshift companion
> > > associated with low redshift galaxies. There must be manydo
> > > thousands of galaxy clusters. Only 38 cases does not seem like
> > > enough evidence, when there could be thousands of cases that
> > > not apply. According to his theory of ejection of matter fromMichael
> > > galaxies.
> > >
> > > (A review of: "SEEING RED: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic
> > > Science", by Halton Arp Apeiron. Montreal, Canada, 1999.
> > > J. Oard, Creation Technical Journal 14(3), 2000, p.44)number like that.
> > >
> > > ===============
> > >
> > alph: 38 is much less that 1% of the total number of quasars
> known. How can you imply any statistical significance to a
> >theory that
> > LA> Even ONE would alert any unbiased mind to consider the
> probability that the current "red-shift" hypothesis may be wrong.
> alph: There is more to it then that. You can't just take any
> comes along. There are thousands of theory.that it is obvious that total confusion reigns!
> LA> Translation. Astronomers have so many conflicting hypotheses
>No idea what you are tlaking about. Why did you even bother to post
this? Stop wasting bandwidth. I have been asking questions of you
for quite some time but you continually avoid a direct answer. Every
single time you have responded none of the responses answered the
question. Instead you avoided answering. The quotes you provided
have absolutely nothing to do with my questions. They are valid
questions and I am unsure your fear of answering. Here they are
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or
counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected
to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific
method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry.
Regarding the possibility of non-cosmological redshift of quasars:
1) Since 1977 or 1986, what is the current state of these
observations? What have the new observations shown?
2) What is the measure of association - that is, how do you know that
a quasar is associated with a galaxy?
3) Have any new observations been made? How?
4) Have improved observations increased or decreased the probability
that the quasar is associated with the nearby galaxy?
5) How many quasars have been discovered? This is a number.
6) How many are associated with galaxies? This is a number.
7) Would the percentage associated with galaxies indicate an
association or coincidence? This is a number.
8) Does the quasar's spectrum indicate a foreground or a background
9) What where the contradictions to the redshift/distance
relationship that Arp saw? Just saying he saw a contradiction is not
evidence, but opinion.
Questions regarding Lerner's "The Big Bang Never happened":
1) How does an infinitely old plasma universe supports creation?
Regarding quantum mechanics you never told us
1) What are the contradictions of quantum mechanics?
2) How has quantum mechanics failed?
Regarding a young earth:
1) What is your actual evidence for a young earth?
For the last question, a word list is not evidence. And for all
questions you have to be specific supplying details and references
by the way, quotes from apologeticists do not count as evidence.
Remember you saying "I do not know" is a reasonable answer.