Galactocentricity.

It's geocentrism for the Milky Way. We may just be this one little clump of rock flinging around this massive ball of fusing gas in the Sagittarius arm of the Milky Way... but even with the trillions upon trillions of other stars and galaxies... ours is at the center of that!

According to CreationWiki:

Few creationists disagree that the Earth is in motion around the Sun, and our solar system in movement within the Milky Way galaxy. However, simply put, geocentrism is the belief in a universe-centered world.

Evidence, such as quantized redshift, offers strong support that the Milky Way exists at the center of the universe.

How simply put... geocentrism (earth centered) is the belief in a universe-centered world. Wait, a universe centered world. What the hell? That's not even vaguely coherent. And the term is "galacto-" not "universeo-". Shouldn't it be "simply put" as an Earth centered view, simply put, is a Milky Way centered view.

And what was the evidence for this? Oh, Quantized redshift... who could argue with that! Oh, I can, oh physicists, oh everybody who understands what a redshift is. Basically due to a nice little doppler shift (change in apparent frequency due to motion) (think of the change in the sound waves (pitch) an ambulance (ecnalubma) makes when it is coming toward you and going away from you) when galaxies or stars or whatnot are flying away from our galaxy they seem to be shifted more toward the red. Noticing this red shift is what has lead us to understand the universe is accelerating in its expansion. What does this have to do with the Milky Way being at the center of the universe? Nothing. In fact, there's no real reference points at all, we might as well be flying around in any direction.

I'm glad these Creationists have stepped away from silly ideas like Biblical geocentricism and concluded much more reasonable things like "screw you we are too special cuz quantized redshift says so!"

Divinely Hidey God.

One of the comments from the God Delusion debate (see below) struck me as rather funny. I know, they are all comic gold but this one was just classic.

"Amazingly strong Dr. Lennox. If a Atheist where a thinking person surely he/she could admit they don't know all there is to know and that God could exist in the part they have yet to know."

God could exist in part they have yet to know?

"I've been looking for this God of yours for a while and haven't found it yet. So I'm an atheist."

-- "Have you checked under that rock?"

"Yes."

-- "How about that one?"

"Yes."

-- "And that one?"

"No."

-- "See GOD exists! I TOLD YOU SO!"

As if God is some kind of new species of snail.

Swing Batter! And a thanks the Xanthir, FCD.

Way back in June I made a post on Pharyngula, it consisted of absolutely true statements.

The best way to get folks to swing is to lob a softball.

The following are absolutely true.
---- Mutation does not generate have a special method for generating useful information. In fact, in context of mutation it doesn't generate useful anything (useful is really a determination of natural selection, mutation just makes the information... selection figures out if it is useful).
---- Despite claims by evolutionists that you can't strongly evidence design by looking at something, you can. From computer programs to frogs, there are actually pretty clear indicators whether something is the product of design or not. I write code, and spend a lot of time working with evolutionary algorithms, and I can tell you the difference between the code is pretty much night and day. Designed things typically show a fairly uniform intelligence, things are modular (everything has it's place next to other related stuff), and they do not reproduce. Evolved solutions are either freakishly stupid or extremely intelligent with a rare shade of gray between, unrelated things not only don't have their own section but they latch onto each other is rather absurd ways, and they always reproduce. Sadly for the creationists however, this clearly suggests that frogs are evolved and computers programs are not. What little evidence we have to go by strongly suggests design for many non-living things and evolution for all living things.
---- I have never seen a half-man, half-monkey.
---- I don't think that human beings could have been formed by chance.
---- Irreducible complexity is actually a useful and definite state. Though trivial to evolve such situations and laughable to suggest that such things can't evolve. The actual state of being irreducibly complex isn't complete poppycock.

Swing batter!

I found it again today, just to see that a number of people had their hackles raised concerning my language. Which was oddly the point, but I never imagined it would do so well. Moreso, because I left so many asides in it as to why my statement was correct.

Looking down the comments it seems that Xanthir figured out that I was making accurate statements exactly as I claimed. Thanks. Good to know my comment wasn't completely misunderstood by everybody.