[geocentrism] Re: Feasibility
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:24:06 -0500
Dr. Jones,
My last comment/question refers only to item #21, not the entire document.
Sorry for the confusion.
Almost all published biological data does come from evolutionists.
In all cases I accept the DATA if it is:
not inconsistent with any experiments done by creationists,
the source has no history of duplicity.
For all acceptable data I accept the INTERPRETATION if it is:
not inconsistent with Revelation (in this case, Special Creation ex
nihilo)
So in some cases I may accept the biological source data but not the
interpretation rendered.
In this regard see http://kolbecenter.org/ => articles => Ethiopa man - Apr
6, 2002
In regard to NASA, I have not yet found any experimental data inconsistent
with geocentrism as reported directly by their research, but plenty of
objections in respect to their heliocentric interpretation of solar system
data and structure.
The NASA management is driven by political agenda, and the public relations
office is their stooge.
Evidence of this is found in the recent promotion of "Water traces found on
Mars" to gain funding by rallying public support for future Mars projects,
in a futile search for life on other planets.
Also, the cover-up of the frozen O-ring seals on Challenger, Jan. 28, 1986,
and the disregard of problems with the insulating foam panels on the
ill-fated Shuttle can be traced to non-scientific internal politics.
Despite the indictments above, I believe the army of NASA scientists are
apolitical and do honestly report the DATA observed, although some may color
its meaning for public consumption. As evidence of this I note that basic
research reports often state the results are 'surprising' or 'unexpected',
which indicates to me a certain openness to new ideas. It's at the lowest
levels that NASA has credibility, in their uncensored technical reports.
It may seem strange to say so, but NASA is best treated as 2 separate
organizations with disparate intentions and veracity - the arm that
publishes for public consumption to influence funding and support, and the
blue collar scientists motivated largely to seek objective truth, whose
audience is the informed scientific community.
To reject the latter's input because of the former's bias is self-defeating,
spiting oneself. What other sources have such resources available to the
public as NASA, JPL and NOAA?
Pax Christi,
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dr. Neville Jones
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 6:50 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Feasibility
>
>
> Robert,
>
> Leaving aside your detailed analysis for the moment, in answer to
> your question, "Even if the claim is true, what does this all
> prove?", in order for us to get anywhere on this geo-helio
> business, we need to ascertain what data we take as genuine. Most
> astronomical data now comes from NASA, either directly or
> indirectly. We therefore need to determine its reliability.
>
> For example, would you consider biological data that only came
> from evolutionists? Or would you view some of this data with suspiscion?
>
> Neville.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
>
>
>
Other related posts:
