[geocentrism] Re: The size of the universe
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Dr. Jones,
Yes, I think we should talk and discuss these things, however, my main concern
is that conclusions and or assumptions as the to validity of these things is or
even can somehow be established. Without some absolute measurement by which to
gage them, we cannot allow ourselves to get tunnel vision in thinking that we
ourselves are able to ascertain the absolute truth of any of it. But I am with
you whole heatedly! I just think that we have to use what we have as
"reasonable" data, until proven otherwise, not just "pure" speculation, and
move forward from there.
Allen
"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Allen,
I understand what you are saying, and I know that it is well intended.
I try to be dispassionate in my work and just investigate new ideas and
avenues, that I consider have some sort of Scriptural justification. I also ask
for wisdom. I mentioned the old astrolabe drawing, not because I claimed that
it "proved" anything, but because Wendy made the suggestion that the "ancients"
probably had more awareness of reality, in some areas, than we do. I have
symphathy with that idea.
The points that I list in some postings are, I believe, firmly established.
However, topics such as the size of the universe, NASA's achievements and so
on, are placed here such that we might discuss them; think about them; chew
them over. If someone demonstrates a serious flaw, then fair enough, the idea
would go in the dustbin. I hope that this answers your justifiable concerns.
Neville.
Allen Daves wrote:
Dr. Jones,
My Calculator is useful for obtaining information but it is not inspired of God
and thus still subject to fallibility. Old drawings and scratches on a ancient
wall do not superseded Scripture nor does it add any validity to any position.
In fact it is that "evidence that secularist use to dispute the Bibles
Chronology for the Persian kings or any other chronology it deals with. That is
the exact same "evidence that they cite wrings on a wall. Now if you chose to
accept that as gospel you can however, that doesn?t? make it so, nor does it
prove anything other than they had different Ideas in the past, which is by the
way what history bears out about, well, everything. There is no proof in this,
at some point you may have to decide to explore other options or risk
stagnation. IF you had scripture or scientific reasoning then I could see this
but there is none except the circular logic of " I believe it is small, I will
choose to interpret scripture this way because I want it to
be
small and I need evidence, therefore it must be small and thus scripture points
to this. Again I point out that God is not bound by Spatial considerations of
the size of the universe or the mechanics in it, therefore to say God is very
near in that context is meaningless. God Dwells in his people, not the confines
of some spatial universe. Again, this completely make the "God very near"
argument irrelevant. I am not trying to be antagonistic toward you Dr Jones. I
really do think you have incredible potential but when you develop assumptions
external of plain text and observation based on other assumptions and then
build a model on it when what scripture there is to describe things and the
physical observation and experimentation either invalidate your arguments or
indicate other wise, and you keep going in the same direction; I think that
kind of predisposition & or prejudices will ultimately hinder you greatest
potential achievements. However, I could be wrong, and I invit
e any
discussion or evidence to the contrary on the mater if that so pleases you. I
say this to you in the spirit of as much of a friend I as can.
Allen
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
