[geocentrism] Re: Thanks for reading

  • From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:30:07 +0100

> 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?

As I said, I don't know much about the various big bang theories.  But 
what is false is the claim that CAM *requires* an initially spinning big 
bang.  This claim is made over and over as if it is accepted by 
conventional physicists when it is not.

Whether any meaning can even be attached to term "spin" when applied to 
the universe I don't know, what would it be spinning relative too?

> 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.

Indeed.  This is why it is never any good just reading the literature 
that supports your point of view.  You have to hear the arguments from 
the people who make them (or at least support them).

> 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?

I'm sure there are many plausible explanations for it.  But I'm not 
going look into this and discuss it until we agree on CAM and that a 
rotating earth and atmosphere would not be slowed down by friction.

Regards,
Mike.

Other related posts: