[geocentrism] Re: Fruitless arguments
- From: geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 14:26:55 +0100
This is pure nonsense. You try to scientifically validate your faith
and then deny the utility of science when your "proofs" are shown to be
wrong.
Philosophically everything is just faith. Science is about what we can
know assuming our senses aren't just figments of our imagination.
Although many lay people may just take science on faith, scientists are
constantly questioning every aspect of science. Scientists may get
entrenched into a certain paradigm but it is always up for shooting down
however divine it may seem (Newton obviously coming to mind here).
Science is about seeking truth however uncomfortable or unituitive that
truth may be. What you do is not science. You have blind faith, you
already "know" the answers and try to refute science that disagrees with
you and provide your own "science" to prove your faith (and often
relying on the very science you refute).
Regards,
Mike.
> 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:
