[geocentrism] The lack of scientific integrity
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:50:17 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Griffin" <ajg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 11:12 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: The Sun/ Comment & question
Alan said of Neville:
> - and I was called "arrogant and opinionated"!
>
> And this is the man who dismissed the simple (correct!)
> heliocentric theory which explains the motion of the moon's shadow during
> an eclipse, and said it was "irrelevant" in order to further his own
> theory!
>
> I rest my case!
>
> Alan Griffin
Dear Alan
I wouldn't rest your case for too long especially in the realms of
scientific integrity. I won't bother responding in Neville's defence, he
made a mistake and he can be expected to be pilloried for it until kingdom
come!
However I will speak further at the lack of scientific integrity exhibited
by the scientific disciplines that are closely connected with the origin of
the universe and life. Namely, astronomy, palaeontology, biology and
geology. Every one of these disciplines are contaminated with dishonesty and
fudge factors.
1 Astronomy.
The 'Oort cloud' has never been observed and was invented to account for the
short life of comets. The life expectancy of a comet is regarded as being
about 10,000 years. Since the current belief was an 'old' universe this
would not do and so the 'cloud', from whence new comets were born, was
proposed to explain away their young age.
2 Palaeontology.
'Punctuated Equilibrium' for which there was no evidence, was proposed by S.
J. Gould as a way of explaining away the embarrassing lack of transitional
fossils, of which, according to Darwin, there should be millions upon
millions. The few that are claimed to exist are hotly disputed. The latest
victim has been Archaeopteryx, now known to be wholly a bird and not part
reptile.
3 Biology.
Biologists totally ignore the mathematical improbability for the spontaneous
generation of life, which Louis Pasteur proved with no uncertainty.
Recapitulation of embryonic development has since been shown to have been a
fraudulent concept perpetrated by Ernst Haeckle, yet he is still being
quoted in text books. Vestigial organs, proposed as a proof of evolution,
is also no longer accepted.
4 Geology.
Radiometric dating has been shown, not just by creationist scientists, to be
totally unreliable. C14 was detected in a fossil found in coal! When the
radiometric laboratory was told where it had been found, they then claimed
it must have been contaminated. Hence the location of samples must be
declared before analysis is carried out. When you consider that 3 major
assumptions must be made before a date can be determined, its no wonder that
inconsistent dates are found.
I believe Neville has a personal testimony to the fraudulent manipulation of
data concerning water on Mars.
The above list is not an exhaustive list, they are each just simply examples
of scientists not facing the evidence and bending it to give the answer the
seek. This is exactly what you accuse geocentrists of but the main
difference as I see it is that geocentrist will evaluate the evidence in the
light of their faith and the Bible whereas, you and the other scientists
want to get as far away from the metaphysical as possible, regardless of the
problems encountered.
Regarding Neville's disbelief that man has walked on the Moon, I once shared
your incredulity Alan. However I have recently seen the photographic
evidence and heard about the insurmountable technical problems.
Interestingly, Neville had this belief before seeing the evidence just
mentioned. His was a deduced belief. TV programs have been made on this
subject and believe it or not NASA does not appear to have offered a
rebuttal against this evidence, its been supplied, not very convincingly, by
third parties who have nothing to do with NASA. Before scoffing at the idea
why not exercise your 'open mind' and consider this evidence? I would be
happy to supply you with a video.
To conclude, as I have said before many scientists in the fields of research
that touch on the subject origins are likely to be far from being objective.
Anything that is likely to threaten their philosophical belief or
pre-suppositions is going to be very quickly explained away. They have no
choice, the alternative is unthinkable - a Creator.
Jack Lewis
Other related posts:
