What I am saying is exactly what my wife said to me about 22 years ago
before I ever published any articles. I was criticizing Henry Morris'
Genesis Flood to her one night as she was fixing dinner. She looked at me
and said "Fine, so his view doesn't work. Can you do any better?" I stood
there, stared at her for a minute, realizing that I had nothing better to
offer, so I tucked my tail between my legs and slinked back to my office.
The point of this is that you, the YECs and Arp are missing the point of
science. Science is not stamp-collecting, i.e. collecting facts. Science is
about explanations of the facts. Of course one must collect facts in order
to explain them, but if all you do is collect facts and then don't fit them
into a scenario you have done nothing but stampcollecting.
And in the case of Arp, it is an assumption that the galaxies are
'physically connected.' If they are simply overlain on top of each other
along the same line of sight, one far away one relatively near, then one
has no anomalies. If vastly different redshifts were the rule, why don't
we see it in our own local galaxy cluster where the angular size is large?
>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. :-)
:=)
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution