[geocentrism] Re: Thanks for reading

  • From: "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:06:29 -0500


Mike wrote:

> Dr Neville Jones wrote:
>  > I am not aware of any claim that the "Big Bang" singularity must have
>  > originally been swirling, but I think what Gary is referring to is
>  > the nebular hypothesis relating to the origin of the so-called,
>  > "solar system."
>
> Well Gary certainly claimed it:
>

> You will note if you google that virtually every hit is a creationist
> claim or a refutation of a creatioinist claim.  The issue has never
> arisen within the circles of convential physics.  It is a strawman, a
> creationist claim that convential physics claims something that they do
not.
>
> It is so easy to see how wrong this claim is (and the claim that all the
> planets must be spinning in the same direction from the nebula
> hypothesis of the solar system) simply by considering the westward top
> spin lob I referred to earlier.
>
> Conservation of angular momentum does not mean everything must spin the
> same way.
>
> Regards,
> Mike.
>

Mike, two questions here.

You are perfectly right in that my source information on this has been
Creationist literature.  (At least we can safely say that Gary did not
originate this one, right?)   If is not a correct hypothesis, that is the
fault.  I agree with you that the Creationists certainly seem to be saying
that this is the case in the links you provided.  But to clarify, are you
saying that what the Creationists are stating about it being the scientists
claiming a swirling Big Bang is false?    That the scientists do not claim a
swirling Big Bang?

If so, that is typical of what I have found in my experiences with the
Creation/Evolution argument.  Often the basic facts are not agreed upon.
For example, talking to one ardent evolutionist once, I was told that "Of
course, there are all sorts of missing link fossils."  He said this even
though Creationists have routinely pointed to the lack of such fossils as
evidence of their contention.  So either people are not honest, or they just
don't understand, or they're not listening, I guess.

Second question.  If the  "Conservation of angular momentum does not mean
everything must spin the
> same way," as you say is true, what forces acted upon those planetary
bodies to cause them rotate in different ways?  Is there an explanation for
this?

Sincerely,

Gary



Other related posts: