[geocentrism] Re: Fruitless arguments
- From: geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 16:25:00 +0100
Philip wrote:
> Yes. That was my point. Religion. The primary thrust of the geocentric
> position comes from religion and /or its Book. If this Book and the
> religions that follow it are excluded from the research, as containing
> possible evidence to be investigated along with Newton et al,
A scientific theory stands or falls on its own merits, not on testimony
or authority. It is not because Newton posed the theory of gravity that
we believe it. If he didn't come up with it someone else would have.
No matter what you think of Newton, the theory explained the observed
facts in the simplist way known and predicted more, and was right (until
we could measure relativistic effects).
He also wrote great treatise on religion and alchemy, none of that is
relevant because it was not scientific (it explained less than it
posited and predicted nothing).
Quote me some evidence from the bible able geostationaryism that stands
on its own without needing the authority of the bible to give it meaning.
> simply because it is
> not 'Kosher' then this would be invalid as a biased research. Its like a
> physicist excluding biology or archeology.
Science is not about competing opinions. Read The Foundation trilogy.
> Complete physics has to include biology.
It does in that biology is ultimately reducible to physics. But that is
not the right level to do useful research in biology.
> Such is the power of the indoctrination of the dogma of science
How you can talk about the "dogma" of science and the "evidence" in the
bible in one post is comletely beyond me.
> geocentricity, unless I had through similar research come to accept the
> evidence of the supernatural in some forms, and that which pertains to
> the Christian/Catholic religion in particular.
What evidence?
> By the way, I do not intend to proselytise here. Religions, at least as
> expressed by its church men are just as narrow and exclusive if not more so
> than men of science. Blind faith is a dangerous thing akin to fanaticism.
Indeed it is. Science is the opposite of blind faith, everything you
doubt about science you can research yourself, confirm the logic,
experiment and confirm that the theory holds. Or find a discrepency and
publish it. You don't even have to know the names of the people who
figured it out (although it helps with some of the units). If God
himself came down on earth and told you that actually man was mistaken,
2+2=5. You still would expect that if you picked up two apples and then
picked up two more you would have four.
> The problem science has with the paranormal is that their normal physical
> tools are of no use to measure the phenomena. Hence they ignore it.
If any paranormal event has any effect on the universe we live in
whatsoever then it is by definition measurable. No such effect has ever
been found - empircally they don't exist. If everyone were blind (or
deaf, or lacking in touch, smell or taste) except for me I would find it
very easy to demonstrate my sixth (or more correctly fifth) sense with
my amazing powers of prediction. All phsyics, mediums etc. are out
performed by many illusionists. If they were better at their tricks
then they would be earning big bucks in Las Vegas and tv. They're all
second rate illusionists.
> Well conducted tests have shown results in telepathy (just one example) far
> in
> excess of what could be expected by chance.
Link please?
> If one is confronted with impirical
> evidence of proven telepathy, undetectable by any physical instrumentation,
> and I must say here that it is proven communication, not proven telepathy,
> then
> science cannot justifiably run from ANY claimed supernatural or paranormal
> phenomena. To do so is exclusive science open to being flawed.
This has happened so many times and baffled scientists because they are
not used to what they study trying to fool them. They've all been outed
by ex illustionist/debunkers.
> Where ever science (official science as represented for example by the
> French
> Academy of Science Paris) has investigated the supernatural, it has always
> been
> from a position of antagonism (to prove a fraud) rather than from a position
> of
> learning or enquiry.
Not true. Many of the best debunkers became so because they were
initially trying to prove their beliefs and discovered that their
beliefs were unjustifiable.
> I mentioned the above Academy because it had set up a commission at Lourdes
> at the invitation of Church officials to obstensibly verify-debunk miracle
> cures.
> They kept a permanent team of observers, who examined all entrants before
> and after
> keeping meticulous medical records.
>
> Thus we have science in action, biased and hostile though it may have been,
> verifying CREATION as an event unexplainable. Their explanation? "There has
> to
> be a natural reason. There is no God or the supernatural." This when
> confronted
> by a 19 year old man who had virtually no bone in his lower leg coming out
> of the
> water in seconds with completely new healthy bone. This has to be
> instantaneous
> creation of 19 year old bone. And I am citing just one example among many as
> verified by this academy.
Did you witness any of these yourself? What was the academy's take on it?
> Confronted with these amazing phenomena, what has science done since?
> Something that should have become a top priority subject for research among
> all science. Suppressed, hidden, forgotten, or too hard?
Or irrelevant for not containing any information on what to do to
observe these phenoma yourself rather than just take someone elses word
for it.
> And you wonder therefore why some of us would perhaps have at least an
> interest
> in the possibility that Copernicus, got it wrong. He hadn't taken all into
> account.
> Its all a matter of mistaken relativity. He just got onto the wrong train at
> the station.
> Galeleo sitting beside him. Its still parked there. The other train
> moved.......
We don't all think the earth isn't the centre of the universe just
because Copernicus said so. That's the point. It's not authority, it's
all repeatable experiments and confirmable logic. Science. Not faith.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
