Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: News item - Hubble Telescope celebrates SN1987A

Expand Messages
  • vgovianni
    ... their ... _________________________________________________________ yes they sure can. ... theory ... galaxies, ... JUST ... with ... IS ... far, ...
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 1 5:06 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In
      > >
      > > blah blah, the answer to this is the white hole theory.
      >
      > Vince, some points you apparently fail to recognize...
      >
      > POINT #1: "White hole theory" isn't SCIENCE, it's pseudoscience.
      >
      > You guys can make up all kinds of things in your head. We already
      > know this. People can make up whatever they want to make up, in
      their
      > heads. Here is the question for you:

      _________________________________________________________

      yes they sure can.



      >
      > WHAT DOES "WHITE HOLE THEORY" HAVE TO DO WITH THE REAL WORLD?
      >
      > In order to answer that question YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DEAL WITH THE
      > EMPIRICAL DATA OF THE REAL WORLD ITSELF.
      >
      > In fact, the real world shows that your so-called "white hole
      theory"
      > is wrong. Just as one example, according to "white hole theory" we
      > should see a progressive blue-shift of light from distant
      galaxies,
      > shifted further the more distant they are. In fact, we observe
      JUST
      > THE OPPOSITE. We observe a progressive red-shift of light from
      > distant galaxies. This is one example showing that the "white hole
      > theory" is wrong.
      >
      > You can also read this post I wrote back in 2001 in which I deal
      with
      > other problems with Humphreys' cosmology:
      >
      > "Humphreys' Cosmology, Another Wrong Argument"
      > (Oct. 29, 2001)
      > http://creationism.outersystem.us/steveheiden13.html#post02
      >
      > (Note that "Steve Heiden" is a pseudonym I use occasionally.)
      >
      > Stop making up stuff and start dealing with the real science of
      > astronomy and astrophysics. Until you can do so, IT ISN'T SCIENCE.
      >
      > And that's the point.
      >
      > POINT #2: "White hole theory" ACCEPTS THE FACT THAT THE UNIVERSE
      IS
      > BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.
      >
      > You apparently didn't know this. Which is what makes your response
      > rather amusing, since you were using "white hole theory" as an
      > apparent criticism of the fact that the Universe has been around
      far,
      > far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years.
      >
      > Vince, I also have to mention this, that you make quite a
      spectacle
      > of yourself, as you like to go around telling everyone that you
      are
      > not a young earth creationist, that you agree that the young earth
      > creationists are off their rockers with the totally false notion
      that
      > the Earth and Universe did not exist more than about 6,000 years
      ago,
      > and yet here you are pushing young earth creationist
      pseudoscientific
      > nonsense used for the very purpose of pushing the 6,000-year-old
      > religious doctrine. This is completely irrational.
      >
      ___________________________________________________________

      the point is that I am not affraid to open my mind and atleast
      consider it.
    • Todd S. Greene
      No, Vince, that is not the point. The point is that IT ISN T SCIENCE. Open-mindedness does NOT refer to being eager to accept ideas that are known to be wrong.
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 1 7:22 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        No, Vince, that is not the point. The point is that IT ISN'T SCIENCE.

        Open-mindedness does NOT refer to being eager to accept ideas that
        are known to be wrong. It means being willing to consider
        possibilities in areas that are not so well known about. If someone
        says, "Well, I think we should consider these concepts based on the
        idea that the Sun orbits the Earth," that is not open-mindedness,
        that's just stupidity, whatever the motivation is for doing it. Open-
        mindedness says, "I'm willing to consider your idea, BUT IT HAS TO
        MAKE SENSE AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME EVIDENCE FOR IT." Open-
        mindedness does NOT mean that people should be stupid about running
        after irrational and empirically false ideas. Your failure to
        recognize this is the error inherent in the way you've used the word.

        - Todd Greene


        --- In creationism, Vince Govianni wrote (post #53001):
        >
        > --- In
        > > >
        > > > blah blah, the answer to this is the white hole theory.
        > >
        > > Vince, some points you apparently fail to recognize...
        > >
        > > POINT #1: "White hole theory" isn't SCIENCE, it's pseudoscience.
        > >
        > > You guys can make up all kinds of things in your head. We already
        > > know this. People can make up whatever they want to make up, in
        > their
        > > heads. Here is the question for you:
        >
        > _________________________________________________________
        >
        > yes they sure can.
        >
        >
        >
        > >
        > > WHAT DOES "WHITE HOLE THEORY" HAVE TO DO WITH THE REAL WORLD?
        > >
        > > In order to answer that question YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DEAL WITH
        THE
        > > EMPIRICAL DATA OF THE REAL WORLD ITSELF.
        > >
        > > In fact, the real world shows that your so-called "white hole
        > theory"
        > > is wrong. Just as one example, according to "white hole theory"
        we
        > > should see a progressive blue-shift of light from distant
        > galaxies,
        > > shifted further the more distant they are. In fact, we observe
        > JUST
        > > THE OPPOSITE. We observe a progressive red-shift of light from
        > > distant galaxies. This is one example showing that the "white
        hole
        > > theory" is wrong.
        > >
        > > You can also read this post I wrote back in 2001 in which I deal
        > with
        > > other problems with Humphreys' cosmology:
        > >
        > > "Humphreys' Cosmology, Another Wrong Argument"
        > > (Oct. 29, 2001)
        > > http://creationism.outersystem.us/steveheiden13.html#post02
        > >
        > > (Note that "Steve Heiden" is a pseudonym I use occasionally.)
        > >
        > > Stop making up stuff and start dealing with the real science of
        > > astronomy and astrophysics. Until you can do so, IT ISN'T SCIENCE.
        > >
        > > And that's the point.
        > >
        > > POINT #2: "White hole theory" ACCEPTS THE FACT THAT THE UNIVERSE
        > IS
        > > BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.
        > >
        > > You apparently didn't know this. Which is what makes your
        response
        > > rather amusing, since you were using "white hole theory" as an
        > > apparent criticism of the fact that the Universe has been around
        > far,
        > > far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years.
        > >
        > > Vince, I also have to mention this, that you make quite a
        > spectacle
        > > of yourself, as you like to go around telling everyone that you
        > are
        > > not a young earth creationist, that you agree that the young
        earth
        > > creationists are off their rockers with the totally false notion
        > that
        > > the Earth and Universe did not exist more than about 6,000 years
        > ago,
        > > and yet here you are pushing young earth creationist
        > pseudoscientific
        > > nonsense used for the very purpose of pushing the 6,000-year-old
        > > religious doctrine. This is completely irrational.
        > >
        > ___________________________________________________________
        >
        > the point is that I am not affraid to open my mind and atleast
        > consider it.
      • vgovianni
        ... ________________________________________________________ okay so no one can postulate and idea without presenting evidence first then right?
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 1 10:46 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > No, Vince, that is not the point. The point is that IT ISN'T SCIENCE.
          >
          > Open-mindedness does NOT refer to being eager to accept ideas that
          > are known to be wrong. It means being willing to consider
          > possibilities in areas that are not so well known about. If someone
          > says, "Well, I think we should consider these concepts based on the
          > idea that the Sun orbits the Earth," that is not open-mindedness,
          > that's just stupidity, whatever the motivation is for doing it. Open-
          > mindedness says, "I'm willing to consider your idea, BUT IT HAS TO
          > MAKE SENSE AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME EVIDENCE FOR IT."
          \
          ________________________________________________________

          okay so no one can postulate and idea without presenting evidence
          first then right?
        • Todd S. Greene
          ... Nice try at changing the subject, Vince. Why did you ignore the part where I wrote, Open-mindedness does NOT refer to being eager to accept ideas that are
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 2 6:53 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "vgovianni" <vgovianni@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene" <greeneto@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > No, Vince, that is not the point. The point is that IT ISN'T
            > > SCIENCE.
            > >
            > > Open-mindedness does NOT refer to being eager to accept ideas
            > > that are known to be wrong. It means being willing to
            > > consider possibilities in areas that are not so well known
            > > about. If someone says, "Well, I think we should consider
            > > these concepts based on the idea that the Sun orbits the
            > > Earth," that is not open-mindedness, that's just stupidity,
            > > whatever the motivation is for doing it. Open-mindedness
            > > says, "I'm willing to consider your idea, BUT IT HAS TO
            > > MAKE SENSE AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME EVIDENCE FOR IT."
            > \
            > ________________________________________________________
            >
            > okay so no one can postulate and idea without presenting evidence
            > first then right?

            Nice try at changing the subject, Vince. Why did you ignore the part
            where I wrote, "Open-mindedness does NOT refer to being eager to
            accept ideas that are known to be wrong."

            Do you know what "known to be wrong" means?

            - Todd Greene
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.