Summations Only

Hi Zaius,Great proposal, all it needs is a link to the source of your quote. You might want to fix the quote's spelling error, too, which comes from the original. I've never seen "wage" used as a verb before, but I'm sure the dog isn't happy about it.

Ah, I see. I noticed that the same paragraph had been posted last year over at Error | Christian Forums, but taking a closer look now I see that you were the author. It's regrettable that people jeer a post still in the promotion process instead of waiting for promotion. Many here think I should turn off jeering and only keep cheering enabled, and I agree with them. I only keep jeering enabled because this website also serves as a test platform for the dBoard software.But the jeers do seem well founded to me. It's one thing to be aware of the evidence and have good reasons for questioning it, but quite another to be unaware of the evidence while drawing conclusions anyway. I can't be sure, of course, but your comments associating the origins of theories concerning dark energy and dark matter with the human imagination while not giving any indication of awareness of the evidence behind them could likely be what drew the jeers.

Thread copied here from the Creation cosmology and the Big Bang thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Not really what we're looking for, but of course you knew that. I prefer that suspensions be preceded by warnings, and now that prerequisite is satisfied.

It might help Zaius if you explained how far apart galaxies must be before this is true.

I know Zaius started it, but its use seems to be growing, so I have to ask: is it just me, or is this an incredibly condescending way to begin a message. Would you mind using the same meaning of the term relativity that everyone else is using? When you need to talk about relatedness you should probably actually write "relatedness," not relativity.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

And I mean what I said. This isn't a discussion. Please use the same meanings of words as everyone else. In this thread relativity refers to Einsteinian relativity, not relatedness.If you would like to have a discussion about expanding the definition of relativity to include concepts of relatedness then please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

Hi Alfred,First, there is no need to respond to moderator messages, unless they request a response.Second, about this: That's not what I said. You were using your own personal definition of relativity. If you would like to propose a thread to argue for the advantages of your definition over the current one you are welcome to do so, but in this thread, unless otherwise noted, qualified or modified, relativity refers to Einsteinian relativity.You may also propose a thread to discuss your ideas about the big bunk being unrelated to Minkowski and Einsteinian relativity if that's what you'd like to do, but that wasn't what I suggested.I have stepped in as moderator simply because there can be no constructive discussion while people insist on using different definitions of the same word. What matters to me isn't whether or not the Big Bang is bunk, but clear communication. Relativity already has a definition in cosmological contexts, and that's the definition we will use in this thread.

If you introduce an idea into a thread then you're expected to address reactions to it yourself.The goal here at EvC Forum is discussions that actually get somewhere. All evidence and argument should appear in messages in your own words (some quoting is fine) and not be in the form of references or instructions to go elsewhere.