Jack L
re your attachments -- I'm sure you've sent one and possibly the other
previously. I say possibly because MSWord viewer displayed two dotted lines
with the words 'Section Break (Continuous)' embedded as the only content. Also
relevant -- why do you generate files without extensions? This tends to make
opening them something of a gamble.
Regarding your comments below -- this is pretty much sniping at trivialities.
I've had enough of answering this sort of thing for one day.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 21 December, 2007 5:24:00 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fw: Re: Integrity in science
Me in red Paul
Paul Deema wrote:
Paul D
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 21 December, 2007 10:43:58 AM
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
Jack L
I should have known better I suppose. For your personal comfort, please delete
my reference to the Oort Cloud and substitute the greater of the orbit of
Neptune and Pluto.
I am aware of controversy concerning the Oort Cloud and I think also the Kuiper
Belt; but in case you missed it, I was
I had to mention it because its little oversights like this that when added to
more little oversights, a great error can become MS. Nevertheless its
gratifying to know that you know.
suggesting that it should be possible (this is NOT a prediction) to determine
whether the Earth moves or does not move without examining the elementary
particles present at the time of the big bang
Regarding the BiG Bang, I have to point out that it is not a 'done deal' with
all scientists. However the way it is bandied around by some scientists it
creates the impression they saw it happen! The BB is fraught with problems. Not
all (non-creationist) scientists agree with it but their voices get stiffled.
Check out the attachment which I scanned from a copy of 'New Scientist and 'The
Guardian'.
and the history of each and every one of them to the present day or any other
such exhaustive investigation. My feeling is that simple mechanics should
suffice though I acknowledge that loss of access to the stars would be a
distinct handicap. If you could just come to grips with the knowledge that
science does not claim certainty in anything
I'm afraid it does with evolution! People get fired from their jobs for not
believing it.
and begin to understand that this is a greater asset than liability, you might
find less need to search out and pounce gleefully upon every tiny oversight,
every minor inaccuracy,
See above about tiny oversights.
every phenomenon awaiting explanation. It is possible to exist, even to live
joyfully, without every aspect of the universe accounted for and every
responsibility capable of being shifted upwards.
I agree but this sound terribly like a let-out clause. But I'm not asking for
every aspect to be accounted for, just honesty about what is speculation and
what isn't. I would be much happier if there was a way of letting evryone know
this but it doesn't and it takes people like us (not just creationists) to
bring scientists back on track.
Paul D
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail