[geocentrism] Re: Copernicus

In what respect is our present science less "primitive" than the so-called
"primitive science"?

Neville.

It is NOT any less primitive in degree. Science is (as I think I said
earlier )based upon uncertainty. That is they will go on to infinity ever
changing previous CONVICTIONS .  (these convictions are their faith,
temporarily)  That makes them dishonest, does it not.

What I was trying to say, is that true science is a valid objective, and
Christianity has always persued scientific investigation. Thus we as
Christians can persue pathways. These pathways of investigation MUST conform
with REVELATION. To go outside this revelation, as did Galelleo, made him a
rebel protestant. He protested the word of God, and his church. He had every
opportunity to continue his research so long as he did not defy the word of
God.

So back to your concern. We have progressed in science, despite the
sidetracking of the enemy. eg lies about evolution. (in the popular
press/media)

I believe in the principle of evolution, in the same way I believe in the
truth that Trees show the nature of their previous environment in their
historical rings.

I also believe that science under Christ, in obedience, may discover even
more knowledge about the posibilities of space and time. Hence I said that
back inthe time of Aristotle or Aquineas, their BRAINS had insufficient
knowledge about possibilities opened by modern science, to make definitive
axioms, such as " The only explanation for our existence has to be in logic
God" . This does not compute, because it ignores the possibility of
undiscovered new knowledge.

Ok all of the above is pure logical thought supporting the Atheist. I on the
other hand who has investigated and verified the existence of  a
supernatural God, believe in Him and in His word, none of which contradicts
the above. He give all the free will to seek and to find, or to reject and
die.

Philip.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 10:58 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Copernicus


Philip,

You state that, "This is where science has taken sides. It rejects God out
of hand, as a first principle, upon which every scientific postulation has
to be based. Thus it runs from geocentrism, into H centrism, even whilst
they acknowledge that both systems are mathmatically viable."

I agree with you, but in the third paragraph of the same posting, you said
that, "Such reasoning that the world must have been made by an intelligent
being, is primitive logic. It is based on ancient philosophy formulated in
the days of primitive science."

In what respect is our present science less "primitive" than the so-called
"primitive science"?

Neville.

---------------------------------
 ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

Other related posts: