[geocentrism] Re: The honesty of scientists
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:50:07 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: <geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:16 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: The honesty of scientists
> 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.
Explain this using my posting of the 3 models why they are all the same.
>
> > 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.
Well just follow my back to basic postings as and when they are posted. At
the moment my first one is being contested by yourself and Alan. I responded
to Alans comments and started again. That's what I have just done with you.
So be patient, you'll see eventually what I'm getting at.
Even if you do think I'm paranoid don't waste words on it it isn't helpful.
I only disbelieve / question that which has assumptions as part of its
authority.
> > 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.
Well as I have been saying I am wary of postulates, they are having a habit
of becoming talked into being an observed fact .
Jack
Other related posts:
