I am glad Bob deigned to weigh in, however briefly, on this. I note that Bob’s limited involvement was not to give answer to the points raised in the thread I linked to from several years back, but instead to lightly disparage my comments in this thread. I have been called enough things on TOL that I am not bothered much by such put-downs, but I honestly wish Bob’s response had also dealt with showing he was right when it came to the Hubble Deep Field (or admit he was wrong). Judging by past history, that just ain’t gonna happen.Yes, it's what, 15 words? (that part about Hubble)
And it appears that Davis is validating Stripe's generalization, at least in this thread, in that:
"Evolutionists love to talk about anything but the topic at hand. Anything. They will even talk about talking about the topic instead of talking about the topic."
Real Science Radio's List of Creation Science Predictions
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
It call a red herring strategy. The take off on a tangent to distract from the topic at hand.Yes, it's what, 15 words? (that part about Hubble
And it appears that Davis is validating Stripe's generalization, at least in this thread, in that:
"Evolutionists love to talk about anything but the topic at hand. Anything. They will even talk about talking about the topic instead of talking about the topic."
Inzl, the title of the thread is “Real Science Radio's List of Creation Science Predictions”.
I noticed one of the predictions that I have questions about. I have said nothing about the rest of the predictions Bob makes. I have done nothing to discourage others from discussing others in the list. I haven't seen where anyone else has bothered to comment on other specific items in the list.
Can you explain why my asking about a prediction that Bob included in the list is a red herring?
Either the answer to your question is in the explanation within the list, or you are asking about a prediction that Bob has not claimed to be yet proven. Although it's possible that I was correct in my first assessment and you're just utterly stupid.
Hopefully without derailing this great thread, to answer DavisBJ's red herring...
No one is saying Hubble was a failure, certainly not Bob E. Only that as far back as we look we see "mature" galaxies. Which is what creationists predict.
For example, evolutionists are often surprised by discoveries like this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140310213910.htm
Now, can we get back to the point.
Cheers.
No one is saying Hubble was a failure, certainly not Bob E. Only that as far back as we look we see "mature" galaxies. Which is what creationists predict.
For example, evolutionists are often surprised by discoveries like this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140310213910.htm
Now, can we get back to the point.
Cheers.
Astronomers are often surprised as well. Your use of the term "evolutionist" is noted. But then what would one expect you to use,
and yes, scientists in general are often surprised. That is the nature of scientific studies.