Has Pags completely lost it?
macaddicted
through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
to reality?
Ron O
wrote:
You have to have something before you can lose it.
Ron Okimoto
Stuart
Miriam Rogers
I agree with you. He seems to be getting loonier than he was in years
past.
T Pagano
I suspect you may be referring to my support of the geoCentric model?
If so, the history of man's modelling of the universe tells an
entirely different story. Were you aware that the only thing keeping
the entire heliocentric model from collapsing is the Lorentz
Transformation, a mathematical contrivance.
The Michelson-Morley and the Airy Stellar Aberration experiments both
proved conclusiively that the earth was not moving. No one has
produced a single experiment proving conclusively otherwise. Einstein,
Lorentz and all their contemporaries at the time were extremely
troubled because both experiments were reproduced and unimpeachable.
Neither Michelson, Morley nor Airy were geoCentricists and were
surprised by the results. Fitzgerald suggested a way out the obvious
conclusion of these experiments: he argued that matter shrunk when it
moved and Lorentz was chosen to put this idea into mathematical
dressing such that it would exactly "correct for" the results of these
experiments. If anything, it is this piece of science history that is
shocking.
As far as Earth being the center; Hubble discovered this with his
telescope when he observed all the galaxies that he could see were in
concentric shells with the Earth at the center. All future
observations including the Sloan Digital Sky Survey confirmed this.
This disconfirms the Big Bang presupposition that the universe has no
center AND that the universe is homogeneous---that is, according to
Big Bang the universe should look much the same regardless of one's
location. No one expected to see these concentric shells with Earth
at the center.
A final shocking discovery (for this post) was that the CMB (the
cosmic background radiation)----that crown jewel corroboration of Big
Bang------after 50 years of intense search was found to be completely
isotropic (that is, without any temperature variation). But this
contradicts Big Bang which expected an anistropic CMB as a consequence
of clumpiness (that is, due to the formation of stars, planets,
galaxies there should be significant temperature variations).
And even Hawking has opined that Einstein's GR which predicts
singularities is plain wrong and will have to be corrected. Einstein
himself realized this and tried for the rest of his life to generate
singularity free field equations without success.
Reading K-undergraduate texts and watching the Discovery Channel one
would be lead to believe that science history lead inevitably and
without glitch to the truth about our solar system and universe. But
this just ain't true.
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
wrote:
More of Okimoto's stimulating insight.
Honestly bpuharic offers more of a substantive argument than this
nimrod.
Regards,
T Pagano
Walter Bushell
<75708189298079696.112096mac...@news.giganews.c
om>,
macaddicted <macaddicte...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
Obviously not. Certainly if you are able to post you are tied to
reality, but figuratively more disconnected than earlier.
--
All BP's money, and all the President's men,
Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again.
Boikat
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 12, 6:57 pm, macaddicted <macaddictedReMoVeT...@ca.rr.com>
> >wrote:
> >> So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
> >> through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
>
> >> Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
> >> to reality?
>
> >You have to have something before you can lose it.
>
> >Ron Okimoto
>
> More of Okimoto's stimulating insight.
Yet, he was still correct.
>
> Honestly bpuharic offers more of a substantive argument than this
> nimrod.
As opposed to you?
BTW, Brave Sir Tony, I still haven't seen that citation for that "vast
areas of out-of-sequence" sedimentary rock. Did you misplace it?
maybe it was not that "vast" after all (and that trail of dust as you
run away does not count as "out of equence sedimentary rock).
Boikat
macaddicted
Frosh physics is a long time ago, and my only use for Airy as an amateur
astronomer was trying figure out what kind of resolution I could expect
from various optical systems.
>
> As far as Earth being the center; Hubble discovered this with his
> telescope when he observed all the galaxies that he could see were in
> concentric shells with the Earth at the center. All future
> observations including the Sloan Digital Sky Survey confirmed this.
> This disconfirms the Big Bang presupposition that the universe has no
> center AND that the universe is homogeneous---that is, according to
> Big Bang the universe should look much the same regardless of one's
> location. No one expected to see these concentric shells with Earth
> at the center.
I saw the chart on the SDSS site that seems to show that on what appears
to be at a very large distance. Haven't had a chance yo go back and
figure out what it showed.
>
> A final shocking discovery (for this post) was that the CMB (the
> cosmic background radiation)----that crown jewel corroboration of Big
> Bang------after 50 years of intense search was found to be completely
> isotropic (that is, without any temperature variation). But this
> contradicts Big Bang which expected an anistropic CMB as a consequence
> of clumpiness (that is, due to the formation of stars, planets,
> galaxies there should be significant temperature variations).
>
Going back to my amateur astronomy, my understanding is that the
temperature differences are very small but do exist.
> And even Hawking has opined that Einstein's GR which predicts
> singularities is plain wrong and will have to be corrected. Einstein
> himself realized this and tried for the rest of his life to generate
> singularity free field equations without success.
>
I seem to collect never read books on GR. But again back to the
astronomy my understanding is that massive black holes are required for
galaxy formation.
> Reading K-undergraduate texts and watching the Discovery Channel one
> would be lead to believe that science history lead inevitably and
> without glitch to the truth about our solar system and universe. But
this just ain't true.
Regards,
T Pagano
From past experience I know it's usually vastly simplified. Out of
curiosity where are you getting this material? It runs counter to what
is usually presented (which is something of an understatement I
suppose).
John Harshman
Says Tony, offering no substantive argument.
Rusty Sites
>
> The Michelson-Morley and the Airy Stellar Aberration experiments both
> proved conclusiively that the earth was not moving. No one has
> produced a single experiment proving conclusively otherwise. Einstein,
> Lorentz and all their contemporaries at the time were extremely
> troubled because both experiments were reproduced and unimpeachable.
And Einstein concluded that there was no way to say whether the earth
was moving in some absolute sense and that it didn't matter anyway.
Nonetheless, the earth IS moving relative to the cosmic background
radiation.
tim.anderson
> the CMB (the
> cosmic background radiation)----that crown jewel corroboration of Big
> Bang------after 50 years of intense search was found to be completely
> isotropic (that is, without any temperature variation).
Everything from COBE (and subsequent research) that I can find on the
net appears to point to exactly the opposite conclusion (confirming
anisotropy), and broadly supports the current Big Bang model.
Ernest Major
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes
>The Michelson-Morley and the Airy Stellar Aberration experiments both
>proved conclusiively that the earth was not moving.
You started off arguing that the Michelson-Morley experiment did not
produce a zero (within the margin of error) result (and hence by some
undefined chain of inference geocentrism was true). You appear to have
changed your premise to the Michelson-Morley experiment producing a zero
(within the margin of error) result, and hence geocentrism is true.
That's a bit more sensible, but the inference that earth is not moving
is not conclusively proven, and in the process you've thrown out the
majority of physics.
Unfortunately for the consistency of your arguments you have recently
claimed to expect that the Michelson-Morley experiment to produce a zero
(within the margin or error) result on the moon, on the grounds that the
ether is co-rotating with the universe. That premise is incompatible
with your claim that the Michelson-Morley experiment conclusively proves
that the earth is not moving.
--
alias Ernest Major
Vend
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:57:14 -0500, macaddicted
>
> >So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
> >through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
>
> >Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
> >to reality?
>
> I suspect you may be referring to my support of the geoCentric model?
> If so, the history of man's modelling of the universe tells an
> entirely different story. �Were you aware that the only thing keeping
> the entire heliocentric model from collapsing is the Lorentz
> Transformation, a mathematical contrivance.
Earth rotation can be detected with a Focault pendolum.
> The Michelson-Morley and the Airy Stellar Aberration experiments both
> proved conclusiively that the earth was not moving.
False claim.
> As far as Earth being the center; Hubble discovered this with his
> telescope when he observed all the galaxies that he could see were in
> concentric shells with the Earth at the center.
Another false claim.
> A final shocking discovery (for this post) �was that the CMB (the
> cosmic background radiation)----that crown jewel corroboration of Big
> Bang------after 50 years of intense search was found to be completely
> isotropic (that is, without any temperature variation).
It's not completely isotropic. It is mostly isotropic.
> �But this
> contradicts Big Bang which expected an anistropic CMB as a consequence
> of clumpiness (that is, due to the formation of stars, planets,
> galaxies there should be significant temperature variations). �
In fact, there are.
> And even Hawking has opined that Einstein's GR which predicts
> singularities is plain wrong and will have to be corrected. �Einstein
> himself realized this and tried for the rest of his life to generate
> singularity free field equations without success.
So?
A.Carlson
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:57:14 -0500, macaddicted
><macaddicte...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
>>through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
>>
>>Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
>>to reality?
>
>I suspect you may be referring to my support of the geoCentric model?
>If so, the history of man's modelling of the universe tells an
>entirely different story. Were you aware that the only thing keeping
>the entire heliocentric model from collapsing is the Lorentz
>Transformation, a mathematical contrivance.
Really?!?! And I thought that since the Sun is much larger than the
Earth and has a far greater gravitational pull than the Earth does -
that even the most basic and original laws of physics, Newton's Laws
of Motion, still comes into play.
IOW, then what exactly is stopping the Earth from being pulled into
the sun by their mutual gravitational forces?
A heliocentric solar system explains this, a geocentric system
doesn't!
>The Michelson-Morley and the Airy Stellar Aberration experiments both
>proved conclusively that the earth was not moving.
According to who exactly?
The original purpose of the Michelson-Morley experiment was to measure
the interplay of light and a theoretical aether in space. Since it
turns out that there is no such aether to speak of it cannot be used
to detect the movement of the earth through it.
>No one has
>produced a single experiment proving conclusively otherwise.
Nope! Not even Newton. Nothing to see here. Just move on.
>Einstein,
>Lorentz and all their contemporaries at the time were extremely
>troubled because both experiments were reproduced and unimpeachable.
Even if they were somehow "troubled" for one reason or another, the
non-existence of an aether throughout space reasonably explains the
results of the experiments. Einstein's own later work also
contributed to our better understanding (well, maybe not yours) of
what was really going on.
>Neither Michelson, Morley nor Airy were geoCentricists and were
>surprised by the results.
They probably weren't gynecologists either, or jugglers, or elephant
wranglers, or flat earthers... (hint: a geocentric universe was not
the only possible explanation as to why the experiments failed at
detecting any movement of the aether)
>Fitzgerald suggested a way out the obvious
>conclusion of these experiments: he argued that matter shrunk when it
>moved and Lorentz was chosen to put this idea into mathematical
>dressing such that it would exactly "correct for" the results of these
>experiments. If anything, it is this piece of science history that is
>shocking.
Others suggested that there simply was no aether present to measure
its hypothetical effect on the speed of light.
>As far as Earth being the center; Hubble discovered this with his
>telescope when he observed all the galaxies that he could see were in
>concentric shells with the Earth at the center. All future
>observations including the Sloan Digital Sky Survey confirmed this.
Or not! I thought that galaxies were found in clusters. Where do you
get this concentric shells shit?
>This disconfirms the Big Bang presupposition that the universe has no
>center AND that the universe is homogeneous---that is, according to
>Big Bang the universe should look much the same regardless of one's
>location. No one expected to see these concentric shells with Earth
>at the center.
I don't expect that we even see these 'concentric shells' in the first
place. Perhaps just you do.
Or perhaps you're just confused. A universe where objects are moving
away from a common point at speeds proportional to the distance from
the origin would also be moving away from each other in proportion to
their relative distance from each other. IOW, there would be any
number of points in such a universe where it appears to simpletons
such as yourself that the heavens are expanding from that particular
point. Still no concentric shells though.
>A final shocking discovery (for this post) was that the CMB (the
>cosmic background radiation)----that crown jewel corroboration of Big
>Bang------after 50 years of intense search was found to be completely
>isotropic (that is, without any temperature variation). But this
>contradicts Big Bang which expected an anistropic CMB as a consequence
>of clumpiness (that is, due to the formation of stars, planets,
>galaxies there should be significant temperature variations).
Even if this were true (and it isn't anyway) there are still other
models of the universe that don't have our own solar system (and
certainly not the earth itself) at its center.
A universe based on the Big Bang theory is not expected to be
*completely* isotropic and the slight variances observed are within
what was expected.
>And even Hawking has opined that Einstein's GR which predicts
>singularities is plain wrong and will have to be corrected. Einstein
>himself realized this and tried for the rest of his life to generate
>singularity free field equations without success.
Which has nothing to do with a geocentric model.
>Reading K-undergraduate texts and watching the Discovery Channel one
>would be lead to believe that science history lead inevitably and
>without glitch to the truth about our solar system and universe. But
>this just ain't true.
Science does not give us absolute truths, it gives us the most likely
answers - far better than religion typically does.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
gee tony. and i consider you a bald faced liar. interesting
bpuharic
<macaddicte...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
yeah i think so. he's just degenerated into brazen lies. no attempt at
subtlety at all. just out and out lies.
not so unusual for a creationist.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:57:14 -0500, macaddicted
><macaddicte...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
>>through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
>>
>>Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
>>to reality?
>
>I suspect you may be referring to my support of the geoCentric model?
>If so, the history of man's modelling of the universe tells an
>entirely different story. Were you aware that the only thing keeping
>the entire heliocentric model from collapsing is the Lorentz
>Transformation, a mathematical contrivance.
you mean other than direct meaurements of the earth's movement in the
galaxy? the measurement of the galaxies movement towards the great
attractor?
you seem to have developed a bit of an obsession with an experiment
done 100 years ago that had no bearing on your argument. it's rare to
see even a creationist continuing to lie brazenly about something he's
been corrected on a number of times. is this the new style in
creationism? just lie, regardless of the facts?
>
>The Michelson-Morley and the Airy Stellar Aberration experiments both
>proved conclusiively that the earth was not moving. No one has
>produced a single experiment proving conclusively otherwise
really? got any proof of this? because we have plenty of proof the
earth is in the disk of the milky way galaxy and is moving as the disk
moves.
so you're lying.
>
>As far as Earth being the center; Hubble discovered this with his
>telescope when he observed all the galaxies that he could see were in
>concentric shells with the Earth at the center
nope. that's not what he discovered at all. care to cite a reference?
or is this just another lie?
.. All future
>observations including the Sloan Digital Sky Survey confirmed this.
funny...i used to hang out at the allegheny observatory when i was a
kid (yes, i was a geek). i got to see the world famous allegheny
plates...film emulisions on glass. allegheny observatory in its day
was the leadin center of astrometry in the world, cataloging stellar
proper motions, galactic proper motions and radial velocities.
none of those showed what tony says the sloan survey showed.
tony is lying
>
>A final shocking discovery (for this post) was that the CMB (the
>cosmic background radiation)----that crown jewel corroboration of Big
>Bang------after 50 years of intense search was found to be completely
>isotropic
gee. i guess tony wants to lie and pretend a physicist by the name of
george smoot doesnt exist. 'cuz smoot made tony a liar.
smoot won a nobel prize. so, unless tony can make a nobel prize
disappear, he's got some 'splaining to do
every single paragraph in tony's post is a lie. every single one.
thus creationism breeds liars.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
the physical universe is expanding. Then it turned out that the
universe is expanding, so he stopped worrying about that.
At least one "popular" attempt to construct a Creationist young-Earth
cosmology requires that the universe is a funny shape and the planet
Earth is exactly at the centre of it, so I suppose that's a large part
of the matter.
And as with creationism itself, and other articles of belief embraced
by various social communities,not only evangelical churches, political
groups for instance, that adoption of a belief keeps the community
together and separate from outsiders, but only if it's something that
outsiders won't believe in. Of course the bible actually, explicitly
says, "Nobody who's smart is going to believe this."
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Jun 12, 6:57 pm, macaddicted <macaddictedReMoVeT...@ca.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>> So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
>>> through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
>>>
>>> Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
>>> to reality?
>>
>>You have to have something before you can lose it.
>More of Okimoto's stimulating insight.
Not really stimulating, per se, but accurate based on your
recent posts.
>Honestly bpuharic offers more of a substantive argument than this
>nimrod.
"Nimrod"? I wasn't even aware that Ron was a hunter, much
less an expert (or "mighty") one.
Or are you vying once again for the Humpty Dumpty Award?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
This contradiction was pointed out to Tony in the "Simple
questions stump Pagano" thread; Tony has (as usual) ignored
the problems pointed out in his posts.
Desertphile
cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.ca...@excite.com>
wrote:
If Earth is the center of the universe, then either gods moved it
there or technologically advanced aliens did. It ain't, of course.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> The Michelson-Morley and the Airy Stellar Aberration experiments both
> proved conclusiively that the earth was not moving.
Tony has made it clear that he's not going to reply to my posts, but
if anyone else is interested, there's a nice bit of irony here, since
stellar aberration actually demonstrates that the Earth *does*
move relative to the stars.
Here's a simple, but fairly good analogy. Imagine you are outside on
a windless, rainy day, with rain coming straight down. If you start
walking, the rain will hit you at an angle. If you walk in a circle,
this angle will change as you change direction. In much the same
way, the angle of starlight reaching the Earth changes as the Earth
moves relatve to the stars. This effect is called "aberration."
Now, back in the 19th century (were Tony is apparently mired when
he's not stuck in even earlier times), it was widely believed that
light needed to be carried by a substance, the "aether." This was
rather peculiar stuff -- it had to be almost infinitely stiff to allow
such rapid propagation, yet at the same time it had to offer no
resistance to planets moving through it -- but a great deal of work
was done on figuring out its possible properties. In particular, there
were two proposals regarding its relationship to the Earth: either
it remained stationary as the Earth moved through it, or it was
wholly or partially dragged along.
If the aether were dragged along with the Earth, there would be no
aberration of starlight: the light would be caught up in the dragged
aether, and would not chage direction as the Earth moved. The
discovery of aberration eliminated this possibility. (Airy's role was
not to discover aberration -- that was done by Bradley -- but to
show that it didn't change if one looked through a telescope filled
with water. This was relevant to a rather complicated "partial
dragging" theory; it suggested that aberration didn't arise within
the telescope tube itself.)
The alternative, that the aether was not dragged with the Earth, was
ruled out by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which searched for
the effect of an "aether wind" on the speed of light in two different
directions. The alternative -- obvious in retrospect, but it took
Einstein to point it out at the time -- was that aether simply didn't
exist.
Steve Carlip
Tim DeLaney
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:57:14 -0500, macaddicted
>
> >So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
> >through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
>
> >Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
> >to reality?
>
> yeah i think so. he's just degenerated into brazen lies. no attempt at
> subtlety at all. just out and out lies.
>
> not so unusual for a creationist.
There are only two models that make sense to me
1. Tony is insane. Completely divorced from reality.
Bonkers. His geocentric model lacks even the most
tenuous connection to reality. It rejects everything we
know about physics, gravity, relativity, QM, etc. It
rejects the totality of everything modern astronomy
has discovered.
2. Tony is the quintessential Loki. He is pulling our
collective leg. His apparent belief in creationism,
geocentricism and Christianity is a sham. He goes to
bed each night chuckling over how gullible we are
to believe that the positions he espouses are genuine.
Is there a third possibility?
Tim
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I don't know, but I think you're right to suppose that to completely
understand his oeuvre, we need to know a lot more about his home
life. Specifically: why are we in his life???
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 22:42:58 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Jun 12, 6:57�pm, macaddicted <macaddictedReMoVeT...@ca.rr.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>> So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
> >>> through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
>
> >>> Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
> >>> to reality?
>
> >>You have to have something before you can lose it.
> >More of Okimoto's stimulating insight. �
>
> Not really stimulating, per se, but accurate based on your
> recent posts.
>
> >Honestly bpuharic offers more of a substantive argument than this
> >nimrod.
>
> "Nimrod"? I wasn't even aware that Ron was a hunter, much
> less an expert (or "mighty") one.
>
> Or are you vying once again for the Humpty Dumpty Award?
As an insult I think it was coined in the "Calvin and Hobbes" cartoon,
but I may think wrong, since
<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1566649/
the_story_behind_the_term_nimrod.html>
traces it to Bugs Bunny describing Elmer Fudd the less-than-mighty
hunter. (But also cites C+H.)
Ron O
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 12, 6:57 pm, macaddicted <macaddictedReMoVeT...@ca.rr.com>
> >wrote:
> >> So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
> >> through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
>
> >> Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
> >> to reality?
>
> >You have to have something before you can lose it.
>
> >Ron Okimoto
>
> More of Okimoto's stimulating insight.
Pags having a problem with a statement of fact is nothing new.
>
> Honestly bpuharic offers more of a substantive argument than this
> nimrod.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Pags the Biblical scholar should look up Nimrod, but even that screw
up doesn't matter because I see no substantive argument here. This is
just another example of Pags making an utter fool of himself. You
really do have to have something before you can lose it, and Pags
obviously had nothing to lose. You really can't make this junk up.
Who would believe anyone if they claimed that someone like Pags
existed?
The sad thing is that Pags isn't alone. He is typical of the long
term posters on the anti-evolution side. That is a select group
because it takes a special person to stay in denial for more than a
few months, but these guys are the fruit of the anti-evolution
movement. Anyone that wants to check it out can go to the "By the
fruits" threads and look for anyone that they would care to put up as
being someone credible enough to side with. Incompetence and simple
ignorance should not be a virtue and does not make a credible person.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e093507cc6a0d97d?hl=en
There is a link to a previous "By their fruits" so you can look up
further back by following the chain. You can go to Google groups and
view their profiles and find more of their past posts. This is the
current state of the anti-evolution movement and is the reason that
the bait and switch scam that is currently going down (a scam
perpetrated on the creationists by other creationists) still has
supporters. The situation really is this bad. Only the ignorant,
incompetent, and or dishonest still support the intelligent design
scam, and Pags is an example. How honest or competent is anyone that
bends over and takes the switch scam from the bogus ID perps? If you
are on the anti-evolution side, what choices do you have? Are you
going to bend over and take a switch scam that doesn't even mention
that intelligent design or creationism ever existed? Why would an
honest person support such an effort? Do you aspire to be as
incompetent as Pags? Is ignorance a virtue? After observing the
antics of fellow anti-evolution goons such as Pags can you claim
enough ignorance to lie to yourself about how bad the situation is?
If you think that you can't remain religious and still take the
science at face value the Clergy Letter Project might be a place to
start looking into and evaluating some of the lies that you may have
been told. The choice really is to aspire to be someone like Pags or
any of the other fruit of the anti-evolution movement that you can
look up, or you can aspire to be something different.
http://blue.butler.edu/~mzimmerm/
Ron Okimoto
Walter Bushell
<44b99ad3-9d4f-4bd5...@h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Tim DeLaney <delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
3, Tony is an insane Loki.
4. Tony is a monomaniac. He may be quite sane outside the scope of his
delusions, which would not interfere with most occupations.
John S. Wilkins
5. OCD.
6. Machiavellian theology.
7. Dunning-Kruger Effect.
8. Rigid personality disorder: cannot change any opinion once decided.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Steven L.
"Miriam Rogers" <mrog...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c23bd083-08a2-41cc...@6g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On 13 Jun, 06:57, macaddicted <macaddictedReMoVeT...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> > So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
> > through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
> >
> > Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
> > to reality?
>
> I agree with you. He seems to be getting loonier than he was in years
> past.
Geocentrism is really over the line, as far as I'm concerned.
And as far as Answers in Genesis is concerned as well:
"The reasoning is so erroneous at many points that one has to question
whether the book was actually intended as some sort of weird parody or
satire."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism_review.asp
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
news:75708189298079696.112096mac...@news.giganews.com:
> So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
> through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
>
> Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
> to reality?
While all sorts of ideas are debated on this NG,
I was definitely surprised to see Pagano passionately defending
geocentrism.
Look,
I can understand how some folks today still have trouble accepting
abiogenesis. But that was billions of years ago, very remote from
today's existence.
I cannot understand how anyone can be a geocentrist, in an age when
we've landed men on the Moon and sent probes to the outer planets.
-- Steven L.
Richard Clayton
Gosh, I read that article as well as their "Geocentrism and Creation"
article, and I still can't figure out how AiG decides which parts of the
Bible must be read literally and which parts are merely metaphor. What
is the secret of their infallible exegesis?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Richard Clayton
Or maybe he's a sincere creationist who simply feels flipping the bird
at those mean old evilushinnists is all he's got left. It seems to be a
common ending point for internet creationists; sooner or later they're
just shouting insults with little actual discussion of evidence or
facts. (Cf. Nashton, Nando, and Glenn.) It's possible Tony doesn't
really believe all that self-congratulatory posturbation about Great
Admiral Pagano doing barrel rolls as he shovels dirt on his enemies'
faces*; he just thinks it will nettle people.
Then again, it's possible he truly thinks he regularly pastes, trounces,
embarrasses, /et cetera/ all those atheist secularist Darwinists. Plenty
of people appear outwardly sane but have self-images so divorced from
reality as to border on schizoid delusion.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
* Great Admiral Pagano is apparently an ace fighter jock who moonlights
as a gravedigger. Or maybe a gravedigger who moonlights as a fighter jock.
Richard Clayton
Once you've decided faith trumps facts, what else matters? Heliocentrist
creationists are guilty of exactly the same sort of worldly compromise
of which they accuse theistic evolutionists. The "plain reading of
Scripture" advocated by young Earth creationists points to a stationary
Earth and a moving Sun at least as clearly as it points to a
6,000-year-old universe and a 4,000-year-old (post-Flood) biosphere.
Once you've decided a single passage of the Bible can be read as
metaphor or allegory, why can't ANY passage be read as metaphor or
allegory? There's nothing wrong with this approach, as metaphor and
allegory are powerful tools for communication. Jesus often speaks
explicitly in parable and metaphor; if your "plain reading of Scripture"
leaves you with the impression that the Parable of the Good Samaritan is
an anecdote about race relations in Roman Judea, you missed the point.
Still, you should at least be honest with yourself about what you're
doing when you contemplate what is descriptive metaphor and what is
immutable, literal, prima facie
truth-with-a-capital-tee-and-three-bangs. A creationist has no grounds
to accuse a theistic evolutionist of "salad bar Christianity" unless he
thinks the sky is actually a metal bowl with windows for letting the
rain through. (Never mind the grotesque mental contortions necessary to
believe homosexuals should be executed, but the Sermon on the Mount
doesn't apply to you because it's for "a different Dispensation.")
Somebody else has already said all this better than I ever could, so
I'll wrap up with a quote from one of my favorite bloggers.
"Slacktivist" is an evangelical Christian— this is from a recent post in
which he discusses how he came to believe that the charging of interest
isn't the grievous sin suggested by a "plain reading of Scripture." The
following text comes from "Sex and Money: Part 3," and I highly
recommend reading all three parts to anybody who has a few minutes.
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/06/sex-money-part-3.html
[ BEGIN QUOTED TEXT ]
American evangelicalism today is distorted by the growing chasm between
its reading of the map and the reality of the terrain. Having invested
its identity in the notion that the map is "infallible," it is forced to
side with that map in every such imagined conflict with the terrain.
Thus we have things like young-earth creationism and "ex-gay"
ministries, both of which are based on the denial of stubbornly actual
actuality. These reality-denying positions have come to dominate
evangelical Christianity because reality tends to reassert itself rather
vigorously until it is acknowledged. You can't just deny reality once
and then move on, you have to do it constantly.
"Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows," someone once said. And it was
that harsh refusal-to-go-away-when-inconvenient aspect of reality that
helped save me from my self-induced biblical quandary over interest. I
didn't decide to dismiss or disregard the biblical rules, but chose,
rather, to pay them the respect of reading them better -- of reading
them in such away that they did not conflict with love as the
fulfillment of the law, that did not suggest that there was some
commandment greater than this, that did not imply that the fruit of the
spirit was against the rules.
I chose, in other words, to stop looking for ways in which I could
concoct conflicts between the map of the text and the terrain of the
world, and instead chose to look for ways in which the map could guide
me through that terrain.
[ END QUOTED TEXT ]
raven1
>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:58:15 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:57:14 -0500, macaddicted
>><macaddicte...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
>>>through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
>>>
>>>Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
>>>to reality?
>>
>>I suspect you may be referring to my support of the geoCentric model?
>>If so, the history of man's modelling of the universe tells an
>>entirely different story. Were you aware that the only thing keeping
>>the entire heliocentric model from collapsing is the Lorentz
>>Transformation, a mathematical contrivance.
>
>you mean other than direct meaurements of the earth's movement in the
>galaxy? the measurement of the galaxies movement towards the great
>attractor?
>
>you seem to have developed a bit of an obsession with an experiment
>done 100 years ago that had no bearing on your argument. it's rare to
>see even a creationist continuing to lie brazenly about something he's
>been corrected on a number of times. is this the new style in
>creationism? just lie, regardless of the facts?
What's "new" about that?
raven1
AIG provides another fine example of Creationists having absolutely no
sense of irony...
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism_review.asp
raven1
Anybody care to place bets on whether Tony thinks the Moon landings
were faked?
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> What is Tony talking about when he claims that:
> > the CMB (the
> > cosmic background radiation)----that crown jewel corroboration of Big
> > Bang------after 50 years of intense search was found to be completely
> > isotropic (that is, without any temperature variation).
> Everything from COBE (and subsequent research) that I can find on the
> net appears to point to exactly the opposite conclusion (confirming
> anisotropy), and broadly supports the current Big Bang model.
It's bizarre, isn't it. Especially since several people have referred
him to the the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics, which went to John Mather
and George Smoot for -- in the words of the Prize citation -- "their
discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave
background radiation."
He presumably read something 25 years ago (or something based on
the state of physics 25 years ago), when the anisotrpy had not yet
been found. I suppose if you believe nothing new has happened in
religion in 2000 years, it's hard to get your mind around the idea
that something new might happen in science in a mere 25.
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
9. He's a secret atheist (or maybe just anti-Catholic) trying to make
some or all religions look stupid. (I originally thought of saying
"trying subtlely," but that doesn't really fit.)
Steve Carlip
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ron Okimoto and the Clergy Letter Project (= "Christians" siding with
Atheists concerning nature and not the Bible).
I can offer no better evidence supporting the existence of an
invisible Deceiver. This is why we have faith: whatever the Bible
says, good or bad, is true.
Ray
haiku jones
You give great evidence of a visible deceiver, too.
(um, you do reflect in a mirror, don't you?)
HJ
bpuharic
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>tim.anderson <timo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> What is Tony talking about when he claims that:
>
>> > the CMB (the
>> > cosmic background radiation)----that crown jewel corroboration of Big
>> > Bang------after 50 years of intense search was found to be completely
>> > isotropic (that is, without any temperature variation).
>
>> Everything from COBE (and subsequent research) that I can find on the
>> net appears to point to exactly the opposite conclusion (confirming
>> anisotropy), and broadly supports the current Big Bang model.
>
>It's bizarre, isn't it. Especially since several people have referred
>him to the the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics, which went to John Mather
>and George Smoot for -- in the words of the Prize citation -- "their
>discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave
>background radiation."
tony, like every other creationist, never let a fact stand in the way
of a good lie
>
>He presumably read something 25 years ago (or something based on
>the state of physics 25 years ago), when the anisotrpy had not yet
>been found
what's ironic is that, even then, they knew anisotropy had to exist
and that more sensitive instruments were needed to find it.
tony thinks that looking for something that is predicted is a failure
of science
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net>:
Specifically a "tautology" or, sometimes, a "circular
argument". Or perhaps other "errors"; it's hard to keep
track of *all* the idiocy he generates.
Jim Lovejoy
news:it1a16lio3361qcfl...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 22:42:58 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 12, 6:57 pm, macaddicted <macaddictedReMoVeT...@ca.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>> So I took some time away to focus on other things. Started lurking
>>>> through Google a few weeks back and I have to ask:
>>>>
>>>> Has Pagano finally slipped the moorings that tied him, albeit loosely,
>>>> to reality?
>>>
>>>You have to have something before you can lose it.
>>>
>>>Ron Okimoto
>>
>>More of Okimoto's stimulating insight.
>>
>>Honestly bpuharic offers more of a substantive argument than this
>>nimrod.
>
> gee tony. and i consider you a bald faced liar. interesting
>
You just proved Tony's point.