Andrew Cummins on "Space, Time, & Energy- B" with me...
 RT>> Appear? You would have to provide evidence that they are actually
 RT>> gravitationally bound first. Can you?
 AC> I asserted that there are quasars which *appear* to be gravitationally
 AC> bound to objects thought to be much closer. Would it be worth my while
 AC> to dig up references?
Like I said, "you would have to provide evidence that they are actually 
gravitationally bound".
 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.
 AC> That's my point... that the evidence is that quasars are probably much
 AC> closer than presently thought.
Explain their redshifts then.
 AC>> or the virtually impossible degree of sustained energy output that
 AC>> quasars must have if of such a distance.
 RT>> Impossible? Their existence clearly refutes this.
 AC> Again, you make my point.  There mere existence is evidence that they
 AC> aren't so far away.
Explain their redshifts then.
 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.
 AC> Search an archive of _Scientific American_ for the relevant essay.
I don't know of one to search. Perhaps you could reproduce it for us?
 RT>> Especially from someone who is trying to discredit science for their
 RT>> own purpose.
 AC> I'm not attempting to discredit science, only those who subvert science
 AC> to feign authority for their own beliefs.
Don't lie Andrew. Your agenda, and you, are well known. Don't pretend you're 
on some moral crusade.
 RT>> But you don't have one. I know. That's why you're prevaricating on the
 RT>> issue.
 AC> I never claimed to have a "scientific theory of Creation."
You can't. Simple as that. It does not exist.
 AC> However, I'm
 AC> sure I can match any scientific theory of Evolution that you can come up
 AC> with.
As I said before, go read a science book.
 RT>> Strawman. You made this statement:
 RT>> The mass of the Universe is less than that of a black hole.
 AC> No, I did not make that claim.
******Start quote******
 AREA: PHIL
 SUBJ: Space, Time, & Energy- B  DATE: 23:49:00 16 Mar 98
 FROM: Andrew Cummins (1:284/57.0)  TO: Day Brown
 -=> Quoting Day Brown to All <=-
 DB> If you could be there to witness the Big Bang, where is the 'there
 DB> there' that you could be?  If all mass and energy of the universe
 DB> is in a single point, then of course, it would be a black hole of
 DB> such power that no light would be emmitted for you to perceive an
 DB> image of what was happening.
I've never been clear on what Big Bangers believe as they seem to always 
change their claims based on the evidence that they're trying to avoid.  But, 
it seems popular to believe that there wasn't anything close to enough 
gravity to hold things together (obviously, the mass of the universe is less 
than that of a Black Hole).
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
******End Quote******
Who are you lying for Andy-Bob? Yourself or your god? I know its for 
yourself, but you think it's for your god, but your god doesn't like liars 
Andy-Bob, even if they do it in his name. Either way you're damned.
 AC> I said that Evolutionists (Big Bangers)
 AC> must believe that else how could the universe so rapidly expand.
And, guess what Andy-Bob? You're still talking crap. In fact, this is made 
more hilarious by the fact that you think that BB theory is part of Evolution 
theory - two separate disciplines.
    Relatif Tuinn
... If they're forced to be Xtians, there'd be many more Xtians...-K.Young
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------