-=> Quoting Relatif Tuinn to Andrew Cummins <=-
 RT> Appear? You would have to provide evidence that they are actually
 RT> gravitationally bound first. Can you?
I asserted that there are quasars which *appear* to be
gravitationally bound to objects thought to be much closer.
Would it be worth my while to dig up references?
 AC> the jets that otherwise appear
 AC> to be faster than light,
 RT> If the jets are moving faster than light then they would be invisible
 RT> ergo they're moving at sub-c speeds if we CAN see them. We CAN.
That's my point... that the evidence is that quasars are probably
much closer than presently thought.
 AC> or the virtually impossible degree of sustained
 AC> energy output that quasars must have if of such a distance.
 RT> Impossible? Their existence clearly refutes this.
Again, you make my point.  There mere existence is evidence
that they aren't so far away.
 AC> The Big
 AC> Bangers response to scientists finding such things is to censor their
 AC> papers and deny them telescope time.
 RT> I hope you have some evidence to back up this serious allegation? I'm
 RT> not going to accept hearsay.
Search an archive of _Scientific American_ for the relevant
essay.
 RT> Especially from someone who is trying to
 RT> discredit science for their own purpose.
I'm not attempting to discredit science, only those who
subvert science to feign authority for their own beliefs.
 RT> But you don't have one. I know. That's why you're prevaricating on the
 RT> issue.
I never claimed to have a "scientific theory of Creation."
However, I'm sure I can match any scientific theory of
Evolution that you can come up with.
 RT> Strawman. You made this statement:
 RT> The mass of the Universe is less than that of a black hole.
No, I did not make that claim.  I said that Evolutionists (Big
Bangers) must believe that else how could the universe so
rapidly expand.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0066
---------------