[geocentrism] Re: The honesty of scientists
- From: geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:16:13 +0100
Dear Jack,
>>Give us a link to these scary creationists who'll kick our butts then.
>
> Try www.icr.org
Thank's, I'll check it out.
>>So what's stopping you, how do think people learn science in the first
>>place.
>
> That's what I have just started to do - see my latest posting 'Dynamic
> equivalents'.
You are not really thinking for yourself though. You go on and on about
the "unsupported assumptions" of science yet you take a piece of flawed
logic put forward by Neville Jones and just keep reiterating it as if it
is fact. A system of bodies moving relative to each other is one
dynamic system no matter how you choose to look at it or what
co-ordinates you use to model it.
> Why don't you show your contempt simply by ignorng me rather than using
> invective? t is rather childish don't you think?
I don't have comtempt for you, I respect the fact that you engage in
conversation with an atheist like me, I just don't know how to address
your paranoia about scientists "hiding the truth". If you just refuse
to believe anything that doesn't suit you then how can we possibly have
a rational discussion.
>> "that is, of course, assuming we live in a Euclidean space which, of
>>course, we don't if we are to assume that the general principle of
>>relativity holds for all frames of reference and not just intertial ones
>>and that the speed of light is constant (both of which we have good
>>reason to believe), but unfortunately at present we don't know whether
>>those angles add up to slightly less or slightly more than 180 degress
>>but for now let's assume it is 180 as you'll never notice the difference
>>anyway. Now Jonny, parallel lines..."
>
>
> Well even Euclid is under attack, that's fine with me. It just reinforces my
> opinion that very little in science is set in concrete.
Absolutely, nothing is set in concrete, nothing is dogmatic or handed
down from "above". Surely you see my point that what could be construed
as "lies" is really just necessary simplifying.
Euclid isn't under attack by the way. He stated his assumptions and
worked from there. The fact that his fifth assumption may not hold for
the geometry of the universe we live in does not invalidate his work and
in fact his work is the basis for different geometries with a modified
fifth postulate.
Reagrds,
Mike.
Other related posts:
