[geocentrism] Re: Fruitless arguments
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 14:03:48 +0100 (BST)
I must say that this is a truly excellent contribution from Jack.
When I glance at all the pruning back of (an ever-growing) hedge that needs to
be done in order to get back to the stem, and when I look all around me at the
perverse and thoroughly bad fruit that Kopernik's initial suggestion has
produced, I am more convinced than ever that the place to attack the hedge is
at the root.
If I, or anyone else, for that matter, can bring down heliocentrism in an
undeniable way, then the whole lot starts to rot in the Sun (fitting).
I believe Revelation informs us that, at the time of the end, this system (or
paradigm, if you prefer) will be brought down.
Neville.
Jack Lewis <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Subscribers,
Since there is no such thing as a truly objective scientist and that they all
carry some kind of a personal belief or paradigm about their subject,
everything that they say needs to be examined for the inclusion of any possible
subjectiveness, no matter how reasonable.
Do you not get the impression that this debate can go on for ever and never be
resolved? To reiterate a previous posting of mine, we need to go back to
basics, Babylonian astronomy if necessary and simply take each theory or
postulate and decide if the objections to it were resolved at that time. This
would allow the likes of those with an average level of intelligence to decide
if the resolution to the objection was achieved or not. If this involved any
kind of supposition, philosophical view or guess, then its reasonableness can
be assessed. For example the observations suggest that the heavens revolve
around the Earth. At some point someone decided that perhaps everything
revolved around the sun. We need to be aware that at this point that it is
merely someone's view and not an observed fact. This uncertainty should then
get carried forward to the next postulate and the two looked at together and so
on. It is my belief that if a 'tree' were to be constructed with a trunk r
epresenting fact and branches representing non-facts we would have a very short
but incredibly wide tree, more like a hedge actually
Neville seems to have attempted something like that in one of his latest
postings. The trick will be for Neville, since he posed the question, not to
allow himself to be side-tracked until the question is resolved. If the answer
is 'I don't know' or 'nobody actually knows this' then how is it possible to
continue? What seems to happen in fact is that a guesstimate is made and so the
debate continues until the next guesstimate is made. This does not sound like a
responsible way to determine scientific truth.
An example of this would be my question to Alan Griffin concerning a mechanism
for explaining how life came from non-life. He has been unable to answer this
claiming ignorance as he is a physicist and not a biologist. This being the
case Alan needs to understand that his knowledge of the whole argument for
evolution stands or falls on this question and he is hoping that someone else
knows the answer - what if they don't?. It is absolutely foundational and
without it there can be no fact of evolution only copious amounts of guesswork.
There is no need to get into laborious arguments over evidences for what
supposedly evolved from what, because without the answer to the initial
question everything is just a waste of time. I speak on this as a believer in
Biblical creation and I became tired of banging my head against a wall
unnecessarily and decided to stop and simply ask the question, "how do you
explain abiogenesis?" Until I get an answer I shall not waste my time arguing
ove
r it any further.
Finally, As a Christian when I observe the moral decay that has enveloped just
this country, let alone the West, and I ask myself "When will it end?" It is
getting worse and what kind of society will this lead to? Well the Bible
predicts exactly this and when that time comes in the last days judgement will
happen. The following is taken from 2 Peter 3:3 and describes the willing
ignorance of those who doubted the creation, the flood, and His return.
knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according
to their own lusts, 4and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since
the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of
creation." 5For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens
were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6by which
the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7But the
heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved
for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
May I ask those, who do not believe, to consider, just for a moment, that the
Bible is true: do you not think that these few verses pretty much sum-up modern
man?
Jack Lewis
"There is this great difference between the works of men and the works of God,
that the same minute and searching investigation, which
displays the defects and imperfections of the one, brings out also the beauties
of the other." - Alexander Hislop, "The Two Babylons."
Website www.midclyth.supanet.com
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
