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!