>What you are missing is that Arp has no mechanism for an alternative
cause
>of the red-shift. That is what he is lacking. In his earlier book he
didn't
>suggest a cause of this shift. In science, a cause is required.
Without a
>cause which explains numerous phenomenon, a hypothesis is dead.
OK Glenn, help me understand this. You are saying observations are of no
value unless accompanied by a hypothesized "cause" which explains the
observations? In science, I always thought observations were of primary
importance, but you seem to be saying that observations are useless
without an explanation which explains the observations. _Observations_
of high red-shift objects physically connected to galaxies do not form a
hypothesis. Are you rejecting the observations because you can't explain
them?
>Bill, you agreed with me last time that the coal didn't mean a thing for
>the global flood--it didn't support it.
Pardon me for saying so, but I believe what I said was that the floating
mat model for the origin of coal did not prove a global flood, but was
certainly compatible with a global flood. And as I continue to learn
more about the evidence used to support a swamp origin for coal, the more
I realize how weak the empirical basis for the swamp model is, and how
committed the defenders of swamp coal are to the defense of their model.
Do well-cherished, ingrained
>ideas
>die in you as slowly as you claim they die in David? (see above about
>David
>demonstrating how redshifts are ingrained)
No, absolutely not, they die more slowly or not at all. Especially those
supported by observations. :-)
Bill