Re: YEC and fossils
Glenn R. Morton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:47:23 -0500
At 10:15 PM 7/14/98 -0600, Bill Payne wrote:
>Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>> I agree that it was wrong for him to be denied scope time. But, even
>> today, few accept his analysis. If his analysis was so good, don't you
>> think he could convince a few more people? Statistical analyses of what
>> Arp suggested have failed to confirm his hypothesis:
>I fail to see what statistics has to do with the validity of a point
>observation. If I pick out a black ping pong ball in a sea of white
>ones, statistically they are all white.
>You will always be able to find in print that outlier
>observations/interpretations are invalid for some seemingly good
>reason. Without understanding the perhaps unconcious bias of the
>author, it is virtually impossible to know whether he is slanting his
>observations to support his position, or giving us a candid look at his
>data. In my opinion, the latter is a rarity.
It is not an outlier, it is the mainstream position in astronomy. Arp is
the outlier. By the way, I have read Arp's book. It is interesting but
unconvincing. Arp claims that objects with vastly different redshifts are
connected by bridges of light etc. This would require that the objects are
at the same distance and that the redshift/distance relationshiip is wrong.
If that is true, then one can test the idea by seeing if there are more
connected objects than mere statistics should expect. Afterall, if you
throw a bunch of galaxies onto the celestial sphere at various distances,
some of them will align merely by chance. If the redshift relationship is
wrong then there should be more alighnments of objects with differential
redshift than chance would allow. There is not. Arp is wrong.
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information