At 12:19 AM 10/21/1999 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>I don't think you have yet grasped what Arp is saying. Arp says that
>recessional velocity is an improper interpretation of redshift.
>Underlying your question is the assumption that redshift is due to
>recession. I understand that Hubble maintained through the end of his
>career that redshift might be due to something else than recessional
>velocity, but today the association of redshift and recession are
>ingrained quite strongly, as you inadvertently demonstrate.
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.
>
>You two must not be challenging any overarching principles of origins.
>Because of my observations and interpretations of coal seams being
>transported organics rather than from swamps (which lends support for a
>global flood), I have been _more than_ "stultified."
Bill, you agreed with me last time that the coal didn't mean a thing for
the global flood--it didn't support it. 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)
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution