neil_

One is considered the founder, the other the father of biogeography. There is no mystery: the universe is geocentric. Actually, you could say that that’s the only famous name, since it’s the one that every knee will bow to… Soon, very soon… Thanks, but I think that’s too much. I’d settle for may God forgive me… May God bless you.

And how do the rest of the evolutionists respond to all this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle “While this might suggest that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, the Copernican principle REQUIRES us to interpret it as evidence for the evolution of the Universe with time” “The Copernican principle represents the irreducible PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTION needed to justify this, when combined with the observations” Oh, so evolutionists are REQUIRED to see the universe in a certain way. And they call those who see it AS IT IS as “crazy”, “nuts”, “uneducated” etcetera, because heliocentrism was proven centuries ago, wasn’t it? Wait… it wasn’t. It still isn’t. It’s only a philosophical assumption… Well, that’s not SCIENCE. It’s only interpreting evidence according to one’s FAITH in naturalism (especially methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism). This text (taken from famed physicist Lawrence Krauss) was on the same wikipedia page until very recently, when the atheistic wikipedia editors decided that telling the truth was too much for them: “But when you look at [the CMBR, aka the cosmic microwave background] 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.” Indeed we are. Now, Krauss is the ONLY physicist who has received awards from all three major U.S. physics societies. Krauss, along with Ellis and others, is one of those VERY FEW physicists and cosmologists who occasionally tell the truth. Unlike the whole rest of them, who keep claiming that reality is how they say it is. For example, Stephen Hawking, who wrote: “Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!” http://sqentropy.dyndns.org/ebook/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time/b.html So, this is when “modesty” takes a grasp on fellows like Hawking: exactly when the entire Universe speaks about a special location for Earth. How about that… Also, note that Hawking himself admits that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE. Therefore any cosmology built on such a principle, including the formal cosmology (big bang), is NOT SCIENCE. It’s only imagination. Hannes Alfven (Nobel prize in physics): “We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfven “Alfven believed the problem with the Big Bang was that astrophysicists tried to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard, rather than starting from known observable phenomena.” Paul Dirac (“On methods in theoretical physics”, 1968): "One field of work in which there has been too much speculation is cosmology. There are very few hard facts to go on, but theoretical workers have been busy constructing various models for the universe, based on any assumptions that they fancy. These models are probably all wrong." Indeed they are, starting with the very formal universe. Instead, when you keep following observations, you unavoidably reach a geocentric universe. Or as, yet again, George Ellis put it: “Theoretical prejudices as to the universe’s geometry, and our place in it, must bow to such observational tests. Precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation.” http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.2335.pdf In other words: inability to prove the copernican principle should automatically throw the big bang cosmology in the trash (no further evidence required). Even such famed individuals (Ellis wrote with Hawking the famous book “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time“) must bow to evidence. Moreover, even fervent atheists like Bertrand Russell admitted that: “whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors held, the observed phenomena will be the same; a metaphysical assumption has to be made. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation." quoted by Dennis W. Sciama, who was “one of the fathers of modern cosmology" (wikipedia), in "The Unity of the Universe" (1961) What Russell said about Newtonian mechanics (although including Galileo’s relativity) is even more true within Einstein’s relativity - which by definition can’t tell the difference. Now we know that modern science not only did not, but cannot provide any evidence against geocentrism. What about the old science, did it show heliocentrism to be true, from Galileo on - or rather Copernicus? Well let’s see what people (honest people) thought half-way through the history to us: “I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus ... but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it.” Alexander von Humboldt, the founder of biogeography

Hubble has been considered one of the most famous astronomers of all times. Also “the leading observational cosmologist of the 20th century” (wikipedia). After several years of looking through his telescopes, Hubble observed Earth situated in a central position. And this was his reaction: “The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.” “The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs.” “The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.” (Edwin Hubble, “The Observational Approach to Cosmology”, 1937 http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_2.html http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_6.html ) Now why when there’s a ”discrepancy with the theory” do we must escape the observational evidence (”unique position”)? Why not throw away the theory instead? Why is a privileged position for Earth ”intolerable” and a ”HORROR”? Why MUST we avoid it ”at all costs”, especially since it ”cannot be disproved”? This is not SCIENCE. It’s not physics. It’s metaphysics. Claiming a different version of reality to make it fit the theory. Scientists should have an oath. Just like medical doctors. Scientists should follow the observations WHEREVER they lead them to, and not claim that it’s a horror, hide observations under the carpet, or imagine stuff (like the balloon) to keep their metaphysical assumptions going. This is what they do with the evidence that they don’t like: http://astro.uchicago.edu/cosmus/projects/fog/ Is that EDUCATION (.edu)? Or INDOCTRINATION? If you don’t know what FOG is: http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf133/sf133p02.htm “ A vast redshift survey of over 100,000 galaxies shows hundreds of superclusters and "Great Wall"-like structures, but also "the ends of the biggest structures in the universe". Vast clumps and dark voids are seen. [[…] This phenomenon is called "the fingers of God" because galaxies seem to line up in filaments pointing at us. The simplest non-theological way out of this dilemma is to jettison redshift as a reliable distance indicator.] ” As for the evidence (showing a privileged position for Earth) that they can’t remove, like the redshift quantization, they either ignore it, call it “coincidental”, or simply claim it doesn’t exist. In case of some evidence, like Gamma Ray Bursts, they again alter it: they forced those farther away (from Earth). Despite that independent measurements confirmed initial estimations of distance (that is, distance according to THEIR methodology). So, there is something WRONG with mainstream science. They really DON’T WANT to consider a preferential location for Earth. Because then the entire evolution (including biological) goes into the trash. But how does the bidimensional balloon avoid the “inescapable” conclusion that the Earth is in the center of the Universe? Well, don’t bother, because the claimed balloon doesn’t exist anyway: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1148v1.pdf But there have been other scientists as well. Unlike Hubble and the university of Chicago, they (have) said things for what they are. For example, Einstein. What did he say? "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: "The sun is at rest and the earth moves, "or "the sun moves and the earth is at rest," would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]" The Evolution of Physics - Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rSg4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=einstein+%22%22The+struggle,+so+violent+in+the+early+days+of+science,+between+the+views+of+Ptolemy+and+Copernicus&source=bl&ots=G00RRXy3ri&sig=BSWNZbwn-T-RqPTxiohuFqdMqYY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nLAkUtvPDszKsga4oIHADg&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=einstein%20%22%22The%20struggle%2C%20so%20violent%20in%20the%20early%20days%20of%20science%2C%20between%20the%20views%20of%20Ptolemy%20and%20Copernicus&f=false And here’s what George Ellis, one of most famous cosmologists in the world, said: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. […] For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. […] You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995 And Feynman: “I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas. [ … ] It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary… To avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity.” Richard Feynman, Ph.D.; among the people present at Feynman's first seminar at Princeton were famous people like Einstein, or John von Neumann (famed for his mathematical game theory, upon which another famed mathematician, John Nash, constructed his Nobel awarded work)

Let’s start for example with this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.4456.pdf “A natural interpretation is that concentric spherical shells of higher galaxy number densities surround us, with their individual centers situated at our location. However, if this interpretation reflected the actual physical concentration of galaxies existing at certain distances from us, it would definitely be incompatible with the cosmological principle that presumes uniformity and isotropy of our space-time.” The paper referred to in the abstract (Hartnett & Hirano): http://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.4885v3 Page 13: “ there is visible evidence in the raw data for an apparent concentric shell structure [galaxy distributions] centered on the observer [Earth] ” As I said in a different thread, CMBR, claimed as proof for big bang, actually clearly disproves the formal universe, and instead proves the geocentric universe right: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3793.pdf “The alignment with the ecliptic and equinoxes is especially problematic”. This idea of a geocentric universe is further enforced by preferential polarization pattern in quasars: http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/81301/1/london_mar07.pdf And by galaxy spin axis alignment: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3793.pdf page 10: “It is interesting to note that the spiral galaxy alignment implies that the universe has a handedness [direction of spin] as well as a unique axis”. also: “a well-defined axis for the universe on a scale ~170 Mpc would mean a small, but significant, violation of rotational invariance and thus of the underpinnings of special and general relativity.” One of Tomozawa’s earlier papers also mentions the rotation of the Universe (referenced in another paper – follow the trail): http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701151 (the last paragraph before “Acknowledgments”) The formal universe (the big bang universe) cannot rotate. Nor can it have a center. Also about rotation: http://news.discovery.com/space/do-we-live-in-a-spinning-universe-110708.html http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2815 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9708114 “Obhukov et al. claim that the correlation we observed could be caused by global rotation. Kuhne, and Bracewell and Eshleman have independently observed that the anisotropy axis extracted in Ref. [1] coincides tolerably well with the direction of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) dipole axis.” Similarly, there are observations and scientific papers that show that Gamma Ray Bursts, Bl Lac objects, X ray sources, etc. are in concentric spherical shells around the Earth. Even the Russians know that the big bang universe is terminated and an entirely different universe is true: http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/20-04-2006/79383-universe-0/ The axis of evil “casts doubts on all contemporary concepts of the nature and development of the universe”, “even the Einstein theory of relativity seems obsolete now”, it means “a considerably smaller-sized universe” and a “scenario written beforehand” [intelligent design]. Ironically, if one throws away the formal entirely imaginary things (such as dark energy), what are they left with? Yes, a geocentric universe: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/NG_news.Smoller.pdf

In this thread I present some of the evidence supporting the geocentric universe. There are so many such papers or articles, that not only I couldn’t find them all, but I couldn’t even remember all that I previously found, so this is only a partial. Please note that (to my knowledge) with one exception (Hartnett) all the sources I use here are mainstream sources (i.e. evolutionary sources). In fact, in the last part, you would also hear from famous names such as Einstein, Hubble, Hawking, Dirac, etc. You would thus find out what they actually said about the topic – because teachers never speak about these things in classrooms... Also note that each of the evidence presented here, while used here to support the geocentric universe, is also evidence against the formal universe (the big bang). Simply because those two cosmologies are mutually exclusive. So if you’re only interested in evidence against big bang, you should still read this thread.

If so, then why are you even talking? Not especially here, but anywhere? If everything doesn’t have a cause, then what exactly does everything have? Things just appear from thin nothing – magically? By the way, I don’t claim that EVERYTHING has a cause. The most important doesn’t have a cause. The most important is the cause of everything else… No, buddy. Because He is God, that’s why. Being eternal is only a tiny part of what God is. Of course it does. Because your logic is flawed. God is NOT contained in the universe (the entire universe is for God immensely less than what a speck of dust is for us), while any UNIVERSal law can only refer to the UNIVERSe… That would be a first. Thanks.

Buddy, the entire mankind missed that - moreover, they missed it for a couple of centuries after Tycho. So what could you be possibly talking about? Regardless, are you ready to explain negative parallaxes? If not, where exactly is your universe, because I can’t find it…

Can you give me an example of simple organisms? Because I thought they are all complicated… Immensely more complicated than a space shuttle, for example. Wait… I thought in another thread you claimed biological evolution has nothing to do with geological evolution… No, you have no direct evidence for macroevolution. You extrapolate it from microevolution. No, buddy. What I claim is that you have no data at all… No, buddy, that would be exactly the opposite of what you were previously talking about. You talked about Earth, not me, buddy. While the discussion was about the universe… That’s what the discussion was about. So, who put(s) energy into the universe? Thank you for throwing away cosmic evolution and chemical evolution. Now there are only 2 more to be thrown away: the geological evolution and the biological evolution. The subject WAS the universe, I don’t know how many more times to tell you that… No, buddy. You evolutionists abuse of ANY and ALL laws. And not even then you manage to present a working universe…

No. I think you tried enough understanding what you want from what I say, instead of understanding what I actually say. Really? How does survival of one animal have anything to do with procreating? I told you we’re not talking about the same things. No, I wasn’t telling you that. But I’m telling it now. So let’s see how you’d manage to keep alive an animal (and moreover, a species) that can’t see in a world full of predators. Looking forward. Let’s stick to decaying then. As long as by it you understand what you should: the opposite of evolution. And how exactly could you possibly tell that? Let me guess: because it’s losing it… I think I told you repeatedly that all you have are circles. No. Firstly, you or I don’t FEEL anything. We notice how it is, and we argue about it, but we can’t feel it. Secondly, it’s absolutely NOT evolution when it’s decaying. I think I already said this in another thread, but if I didn’t, here it is: Buddy, changing is not evolution. The change must be improvement in order to be called evolution. Just as descent with modification is not evolution. Because having descendants is not evolution: not only those descendants must be different, but they must be improved (evolved) in order for you to call it evolution. And guess what? Not only you can’t prove the animals we now look at as fossils had any descendants (let alone different descendants and let alone improved descendants), but the living world also tells the same thing: dogs produce dogs and nothing other than dogs. Moreover, the further you depart from what would be an ideal “average” dog (the original dog), the further the possibility of variation decreases dramatically. In other words, you will never get something similar to an Afghan hound by mating two dogs similar to Pekingese.

Simply because he couldn’t find it. Darwin also couldn’t find it. Although that didn’t stop him from further advocating evolution, did it? Really? Would you show me exactly where in his book does Darwin say that? Because I always thought darwinism equals gradualism. But perhaps we didn’t read the same book, so - looking forward. Who wasn’t defeated? Of course he would. I mean, he, just like you and all the other atheists in the world, wouldn’t instead turn to God, would he? Because that’s the very essence of any discussion about evolution (no matter how theistic evolutionists try to claim differently – they simply don’t know what they’re talking about, because evolution is actually THE OPPOSITE of what the Bible says). He’s not quote-mined by Creationists, instead he’s quoted by Creationists. But you tell me: why wouldn’t they (us) quote him? As for the bold part, don’t worry, there are SO MANY other things Gould said that evolutionists have problems with… Buddy, you miss the main point: if the mother of all evolutionary assumptions is thus shown wrong (moreover, by one of the most fervent evolutionists ever), why is ANYONE still an evolutionist? Let me give you an example (because I’m sure you’re trying hard to NOT understand): if I claim the Moon is made of cheese, and construct an entire universe starting from this, and then I find out that the Moon isn’t actually of cheese, wouldn’t you agree that I should throw away the entire theory (everything that follows that initial premise)? So, if uniformitarianism is thrown away by evolutionists themselves, then why is there still a theory of evolution? Why are still evolutionists in the world? Indeed, evolutionists never know what they believe in. I have to tell them each time. OK, but for the last time. Buddy, let me inform you that besides biological evolution (itself split into two, by multiple criteria: micro or macro, gradualism or punctuationism), there are also theories claiming cosmic evolution (aka big bang), chemical evolution, geological evolution. How exactly did you manage to skip those? Moreover, how could you possibly have biological evolution WITHOUT those prior types of evolution? Looking forward. Of course it would. Because one follows the other… Really? Then what would it prove? Really? For example, would it prove this god: Amaterasu? Because if you call “god” someone who pulls food from rectum, nose and mouth, then you’re really gone, buddy. Meanwhile, you still have to explain how it is possible, in an atheistic worldview, that a millennia old book (the Bible) speaks about the expansion of the universe. Looking forward. So far, you’re the one with the “weird conclusions”, buddy. Especially regarding your dance between gradualism and punctuationism, but not only.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. If it is cyclicity, then no, we do not agree, because you still contradicted yourself – moreover, in the very same post… I’m sure you believe that, but you saying that doesn’t really constitute evidence, does it? But don’t bother to run deeper, because CMBR contradicts your universe in the highest degree. I won’t tell you here why – just wait for my thread “the real universe”. The ratios of elements you observe are in THIS universe (the universe that you can observe today – not to be confused with today’s universe, which, supreme irony, cannot exist, according to your cosmology). So you simply claiming that that’s from an early universe doesn’t tell me anything. Really. Now, the abundance of chemical elements also doesn’t stand. Not only that it’s, instead, an argument for Creation, but because for you it’s, yet again, nothing but a circle: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4333 Read page 14, especially this: “The comparison of calculated and observed abundances depends highly on astrophysical theory (models for the chemical evolution of galaxies and stars).” Yet again, you use evolution to claim evolution. I think I already told you, repeatedly, that all you have is a circle (circular reasoning). The expansion of the universe proves the Bible right, not big bang. Moreover, the type of expansion clearly proves big bang wrong. You must have a huge amount of blind faith to see it otherwise. But wait, since the people that you believe in (the mainstream cosmologists) actually call that “the most profound problem in physics” and you don’t, I think at this point you place yourself outside ANY reason. Firstly, how exactly could you possibly tell what galaxies are old and what new? Let me guess: based on evolutionary models… You’re running in circles, buddy. Secondly, how does showing steady state wrong prove big bang right? Let me guess: you’re only willing to consider cosmologies that WILLINGLY exclude God… Buddy, you going against the steady state universe doesn’t tell me anything. (Moreover, I find this situation amusing, since I think it was you who in another thread talked about the possibility of an eternal universe. You already contradict yourself too much…) You could run against all the other cosmologies as well and still don’t tell me anything. You can only get my interest if you either defend your universe or attack geocentrism.

No, the Scripture does not SUPPORT a geocentric universe (not worldview, but universe). Instead, it exclusively TELLS it… Tell me this: who lives on the Sun? And how exactly can there be seasons on the Sun? Looking forward. I completely agree with you on this. Really? How is that? You’re really trying hard to not see. If you think I keep a list of thousands of links (moreover, with a short explanation for each, in order to find one quickly), you couldn’t be more wrong. Buddy, I have read thousands of pages of cosmology (mainly formal, but many others as well), so if you’re asking me to promptly give a link on a particular topic, you’re simply claiming that my time is less precious than yours. And I wonder why is that. (Because I will have to find the link once again.) Moreover, one simply waiting to be fed things is not scientific at all. Science is a continuous search. So you simply claiming that all you were taught in your schools is true (instead of personally verifying each and every of mainstream’s claims, as I have done) doesn’t make you scientific at all. Instead it only makes a blind believer. And what is it exactly that you blindly believe in? Well, other people JUST LIKE YOU… If it’s one thing that we can say for sure in regard to people is that people, sooner or later (rather sooner), make mistakes. Moreover, major mistakes. But that’s not what this is all about. This is about those people who WILLINGLY make mistakes. Like those who have started to build an entire universe (actually more than one) that has nothing to do with the real universe. And by the way, the Bible also speaks about these people who WILLINGLY ignore reality and start building a universe of their imagination (willingly ignorant, or as Hovind puts it: dumb on purpose!). I think I’ll present my evidence for a geocentric universe today, because I’m tired of the endless completely empty claims from the evolutionists (especially since it’s obvious they don’t even know THEIR own universe!). And I will call my thread “the real universe” – in opposition to the universe taught in schools (the big bang universe) which is nothing but imagination.

I think you should make up your mind, so that we all here know what you’re talking about: you’re either a big bang supporter, or not. If not, state plainly what is it exactly that you believe in. Simple: evolution is hopeless for EVERYBODY. While Christ is hope for the third that you talked about. Only that I have to amend that figure to MUCH less. After all, the demons also believe that Jesus is the Son of God (they actually KNOW that), so… What’s going to do the torture will be your very own consciousness: a full, complete, thorough one, this time along… After all, you atheists claim reason, don’t you? So don’t worry, what you’ll have is PLENTY of reason. Trust me, if it were at all possible for you to get out of there, you would never ask for reason again…

If you have no idea of the topics you talk about, then why do you talk about them? Regardless, the answer to your pseudo-question is this: nobody. That’s what God is about: the only one not being created. Simply because He’s the Creator…

Looking forward for your third. Edit: I later saw that you postulated it: an eternal universe. Well, you should make up your mind: you’re either a big bang supporter, or not. If not, state plainly what is it exactly that you believe in. If instead you are, then stick to big bang, and not switch your gloves as you find fit. It isn’t honest in relation to the other participants in the forum. OK: who (or what) “created matter, order”? Funny: create, creating, creation are all terms also used by hardcore evolutionists. But obviously not referring to the Biblical Creation. So they are hereby accused of stealing! Just as I’m accusing all the atheists in the world: even the wrong formal cosmology (the big bang) comes from a priest. Not to mention Newton and all the others, who indeed all believed in God. Even Einstein believed in a Deity, although a peculiar one (apparently not a personal one). So I’m sick of atheists STEALING other people’s work, in complete OPPOSITION with the original authors’ intention. So if you want a universe without God, why don’t you make YOUR OWN universe, without using any of the work of the believers. So you can’t use Copernicus, Newton, Einstein etc. But you can use Dawkins, Hitchens, Shermer etc. Let’s see what kind of a universe you can make with such “experts” on your side… Now that’s funny. Because I asked you and the other atheists on this forum several times to prove the big bang universe (the universe that you believe in) and you each time avoided that. In other words, you only believe in big bang because it’s the formal cosmology, not because you understand it, and least of all because you can defend it. Popularity, anyone? That’s a very strange way to claim eternity… I will personally stick to the Christian way. In other words, to the real eternity: the one outside time… You’re running in circles, buddy, and not even notice it - if by scientific community you mean evolutionary community…

I don’t know how many times to tell you this until you’ll finally get it: Tycho…

That’s the whole point: we’re NOT talking about “the Ptolemian model”… And speaking of Occam's Razor, would you dare to apply it to the big bang universe? Because there’ll be almost nothing left standing… You LOVE that? Really? Well, how do you feel in the balloon? Comfy? When you want to wake up to the real world just tell me. It will be my pleasure to deflate it…

I don’t think we understand each other. Let me put it like this: show me (either in living realm, or in the fossils) a USELESS organ or member – that is, one that is (was) not used AS IT IS. Perhaps now you’ll understand. Meanwhile, all you have are different kinds of eyes that are ALL USED (as they are). And different kinds of limbs that are ALL USED. Now you tell me: has the living animal survived THIS LONG (as a species, or rather kind) with THOSE eyes? And THOSE limbs? I only have to look at them to answer “yes”. And I wonder how you could possibly answer “no”… Incredulity doesn’t necessarily have to do with personal imagination of how things work – what could you be possibly talking about? Moreover, neither does credulity. And thank you for using more and more the expression “believe in evolution” – that’s all that evolution is, really… I think I’ll grow old endlessly repeating the very same thing: Tycho, buddy. Tycho… You mean those things serving when mating? Only if you are doing the opposite: telling how useless they are… How do you know the opposite? Their eyes are DEVOLVING slowly. The entire universe is decaying, buddy. Funny, even you say that, here: “Given enough time, they'll probably either vanish, or be able to detect something other than visible light.” The context was the universe, not Earth… Thank you for taking such a drastic departure from mainstream. Because they have to postulate other universes, and on multiple accounts: to explain chances for life, to explain why gravity is so weak (the weakest of them all, by many orders of magnitude), and many other things.

Not at all. If you refer to Galileo, not only he didn’t have any evidence (really none; in fact the situation is so amusing that even hardcore mainstreamers admit this, only you don’t !), but you still don’t have any evidence. Moreover, you CANNOT have any evidence as long as you stick to relativity (I already addressed this in another thread). And if you drop relativity, guess which one is the only cosmology left standing? Yep, that one. Now let me adjust your wrong history: the first EVER “evidence” supporting heliocentrism appeared merely one and a half century ago: the stellar parallax. But is that actual evidence for heliocentrism? Only if you explain the negative parallaxes. Because Hipparcos showed plenty of those. Let me remind you that in YOUR universe, negative parallaxes can’t exist. But they can exist in a geocentric universe… Sure, buddy. It only takes me 2 words to throw your universe away. Here they are, again: accelerated expansion. Now if you can fix “the most profound problem”, I guarantee you a Nobel prize. Now you tell me: are you motivated enough? Looking forward. Of course, the evidence against big bang is much more (pretty much everything, ironically including the evidence called in favor for big bang), so after you’ll get your Nobel for that I look forward to moving to other things. At that point you should only be concerned about this: how much room do you have on your shelves? Indeed, each and every time I have to tell evolutionists what they believe in, because they don’t really know: they are simply too busy believing, to bother knowing what is it that they actually believe in. Buddy, 95% or your universe is 2 “hypothetical” (that’s a quote) things: dark energy and dark matter. What does “hypothetical” mean? Well, synonyms for it are: imaginary, speculative, etc. And antonyms for it are: real, true, confirmed, actual… So yes, they (you) state two UNREAL things and then they claim their (your) cosmology refers to REALITY? Yes, that’s exactly what they (you) do. Well, compared to THIS, someone claiming a “spaghetti monster” would be half-SCIENTIFIC. Because the spaghetti is real, you know… No, buddy. What I claim is that NOBODY has observed macroevolution EVER. Secondly, why exactly would you claim something you cannot prove? One of the two: admit that it‘s only faith, or stop believing it. In either case please stop calling it science. Indeed, evolutionists never know what they believe in. They just believe. Buddy, through a not that little part of the history of Earth, according to YOUR theory, there was no life on Earth – NONE. Secondly, if you’re such a hardcore gradualist, what happened to Gould? The poor fellow worked decades not only trying to find those transitional forms that you wave with such an ease, but he was forced to postulate a very different theory of evolution due to his failure of finding them. Now you tell me: who understood evolution better, Gould or you? If it is you, then why was Gould embraced by mainstream? If it was Gould, then why exactly are you still an evolutionist (and worst of all, a gradualist), since you just threw the mother of all your assumptions to trash? By the way, uniformitarianism is mentioned in the Bible (not in a favorable context, obviously). How about that? I really don’t understand what you’re saying – but it doesn’t take you off the hook anyway. My argument (actually, Meta_Agape’s argument) stands. No, they’re not. In fact they are so much NOT, that even Creationists admit microevolution (variation). It doesn’t happen in two different ways. What could you be possibly talking about? So it doesn’t happen in two different ways… No, buddy. The 2 terms exist because they describe two very different things. One refers to a real thing, the other does not. So I agree with what you previously said: “If you need faith to accept the tenants, then it's not a scientific theory. “ Now all that is left is for you to agree with what you said…

As ordered as it could be? Really? Yet again: really? Tell you what: stick your head out the window, and call all the people on the street to your place. If you find less then a hundred, go out finding some more. Then stay that crowded for a few hours (all in one ordinary room) and then come back here and tell me how ordered did you feel. Then switch that for all of you sitting each in an armchair in a very large room (a castle chamber or a hall or whatever). Tell me how you feel now. The cyclicity of the universe is an old idea but to my knowledge it has never been a mainstream idea. Not even when Einstein supported it. So smart was this fellow that he even claimed an infinity (or close to it) of singularities (a universe endlessly repeating itself) – read that again: SINGULARities (UNIverses)… But I keep wondering: why is it that you are bothered what did happen and will happen to the big bang universe, when the first order of things should be to actually prove that the big bang universe is actually the real universe? Looking forward. There isn’t any evidence to support the big bang universe in the first place, let alone a presumed cyclicity. But if you think there is, as I already said: looking forward. It would actually be nice if people stop making their claims and finally prove them. By the way, you’re a typical big bang fan, since you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. You previously said “we're likely on the nth iteration”, and now you say “there isn't any evidence to actually support it”… Indeed, empty claims are all you big bang fans have. This is also typical in regard to evolution in general: the idea is so cool (??), now if we could only find some evidence… One of the most amusing such examples regards cosmic evolution: they claim cosmic evolution because they say celestial bodies are very old, so they must have been evolved; and they say celestial bodies are very old based on one thing alone: evolutionary models… How exactly could one NOT laugh reading such things? And you call this science? REALLY?

Sculelos, I find your geocentric universe very strange. Never heard of it before. RobbyPants, you should really look into Tycho.

There are quite a few geocentric models. Some sticking to the older view (planets orbit Earth), some newer, like the tychonic models (planets orbit Sun, Sun orbits Earth). In the former the universe rotates directly around the Earth, in the second the Universe’s axis of rotation is actually aligned on the Sun, thus explaining the stellar parallaxes. In the former, stellar parallaxes are explained by complicated ether calculus. I am personally a supporter of the second: it explains things more easily and elegant. If you meant for example what keep planets in orbit: ether (or aether). The very same thing that explains the GPS operation. All the astronomic observations. The big bang universe, the steady state universe, and really many other cosmologies (for example Arp’s electric universe). I’m not sure what Bible are you reading exactly, but my Bible says this, for example: “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.” So, the only reason for the stars is “to give light upon the earth” and to be “for signs, and for seasons”. If that’s not a geocentric universe I don’t know what is. See also Joshua’s day, when the Sun (not the Earth) stopped. There are also many other indications in the Bible, but they don’t come to me right now. Surely you’d find them all if you visit geocentric sites. No. Heliocentrist Christians must accuse God of being a liar - there’s no other way. Are you saying that Psalms, for example, are telling lies instead of truth? And what other parts in the Bible do you think are telling lies? Let me guess: Genesis… Who’s “they”? And you probably meant “acceptance”. Of course they talk about cosmology. Already given a few examples. Why don’t you google for many more. Not touched the subject at all? Really? So when the Bible says the Sun stopped that has nothing to do with the subject? Really? Yet again: REALLY? No. It is the PSEUDOscience against the Bible. No to both accounts.

I really don’t think you actually understand what you believe in. Relativity, for instance. Let me put it as simple as possible: if changing frames wouldn’t work, then relativity is proved false. And that’s not all. It goes deeper. If you can’t figure out an explanation for things when changing frames, then relativity is thus proven wrong – by this fact alone. That’s what relativity really means (going all the way). Let me give you a quick example: Earth’s bulge: http://physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/einstein.cfm "Frame dragging also answers the famous question: If the Earth stood still and the rest of the universe rotated around it instead, would its equator still bulge? According to general relativity and Gravity Probe B, the answer is YES. It doesn’t matter if you are spinning or if the universe is revolving around you. Both situations are equivalent." And another, recent, example about relativity of motion: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7290v1.pdf Now, are you finally starting to understand what relativity means? And why don’t you google what Einstein himself said in regard to this topic. Bottom line: if you claim relativity you can never prove Earth is moving. Really never. If you throw away relativity, then there’s only one cosmology left standing: geocentrism. Now tell me, how do you like that?

Or stand quite close to an atomic bomb and absorb all its energy and then get to be the most evolved thing on earth (I think it was a rather recent movie about such a thing !). Buddy, you’re not only smart, you’re very smart! Nice to meet you. I entirely agree. Atheists (and evolutionists in general) require immensely much more faith than us believers. Sadly for us…

I think I already asked this, and never obtained an answer. But here is me trying again: if you claim gradualism, why didn’t you help Gould find those “missing links”? The poor fellow died without finding a single one, and therefore had to come with an entirely different theory of evolution. By the way, the “missing links” are called like that simply because they are… missing. Moreover, I found extremely interesting what Meta_Agape said: “However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.” Well, let me inform you about a basic fact, well known by EVERYBODY: none of the fossils in the world (literally none of them) is of a non-complete (not completely functional) animal. If evolution is true, it should have been countless such fossils (many ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more than of completely functional animals) – but there is NONE. So, still, evolutionist? (If so, why?) Of course they can. Let me update your worldview with a many centuries old “news”… Tycho Brahe. Really? In other words, eyes for example didn’t evolve, they just appeared magically over night? How interesting. Thank you for throwing your evolution theory to the trash all by yourself… All wrong evidence. But if you think otherwise, in regard to the tail bone I think I’ll offer you the same deal Hovind used to with the evolutionists he debated: bend over, buddy! And how about you believing in a colorful universe (like for example in all NASA and Hubble pictures) while instead all you should have seen are b&w pictures? Oh, and is that all they are doing to the actual pictures? Of course not. For example, you also apparently have never heard of the famous “mkobjects” command… Dream manufacturing indeed: your dreams. And no, your “explanation” doesn’t stand at all: if evolution would be true, we would see MANY animals (actually most of them – by many orders of magnitude) with non-functionality. For example, uncompleted (nonfunctional) limbs. Your universe IS an isolated system, so what could you be possibly talking about? Wait, I forgot that you need multiple universes to make your laws work in this universe – or rather “explain” why they don’t work…